1998 (4) TMI 148 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's order of pre-deposit amount being too onerous.
2. Failure to consider strong prima facie case and lack of means to pay the amount.
3. Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law.
4. Tribunal's failure to apply the test of prima facie case and consider means of the petitioner.
5. Reduction of pre-deposit amount by the High Court.

Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order, claiming it was too burdensome, seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs, dispensing with penalty recovery during the appeal. The petitioner argued the order was onerous, lacking consideration of a strong prima facie case and the petitioner's financial means.

Issue 2:
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal overlooked key factual statements, including the petitioner's limited income and lack of assets. The petitioner argued that failure to deposit the amount would negate the statutory right of appeal. The Counsel highlighted that the Tribunal's decision failed to assess the petitioner's financial situation adequately.

Issue 3:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law during the confiscation process. The petitioner argued that the confiscation lacked jurisdiction due to failure to comply with Section 110 of the Customs Act, including the absence of magistrate sanction and representative samples preservation before auctioning the seized goods.

Issue 4:
The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of considering a strong prima facie case and the petitioner's financial status in pre-deposit orders. The Court noted jurisdictional errors by the Tribunal for not adequately addressing the petitioner's submissions and failing to provide reasons for disregarding them.

Issue 5:
After thorough consideration, the High Court found the pre-deposit amount set by the Tribunal excessive. The Court reduced the pre-deposit amount to Rs. 1 lakh, deeming it sufficient and just in the circumstances of the case. The High Court granted additional time for the petitioner to make the reduced deposit, thereby partially allowing the petition.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the petition, reducing the pre-deposit amount and extending the time for payment. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering a strong prima facie case, the petitioner's financial means, and compliance with mandatory legal provisions in such matters.