9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Order No. 03/2004 dated 12th August, 2004; Pre-deposit requirement for appeal filed by petitioner-Company. Analysis: The petitioner-Company challenged Order No. 03/2004, dated 12th August, 2004, seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to hear and dispose of the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit. The petitioner was engaged in engineering and construction business and had been awarded a sub-contract by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. for work on National Highway No. 5. The issue arose when the petitioner imported an Asphalt Mixing Plant claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 17/2001. However, the adjudicating authority found the petitioner ineligible for exemption, leading to a demand for differential duty of Rs. 1,16,61,282. The petitioner contended that subsequent communications and agreements with NHAI should have been considered, challenging the order requiring pre-deposit of the demanded duty. The respondents opposed the petitioner's submission, citing a previous court decision to support the discretionary powers of the appellate authority. They argued that directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the demanded duty in cash and secure the balance with a bank guarantee was lawful. The appellate authority's decision was defended as a valid exercise of discretion, considering the lack of evidence presented by the petitioner on financial hardship. The Court analyzed Section 129E of the Act, emphasizing that the appellate authority must assess the appellant's prima facie case and financial hardship before directing pre-deposit. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it highlighted the importance of the appellate authority's consideration of the merits of the case and financial circumstances. The Court found the impugned order lacking in application of mind regarding the proviso to Section 129E, leading to a quashment of the order. The Court differentiated the present case from the referenced decision, emphasizing the need for the appellate authority to exercise discretion judiciously. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted a fresh hearing on the stay application for demand recovery. The interim relief granted by the Court was to continue until the appellate authority's new decision. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
