2008 (12) TMI 222 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Revision against order for deposit of additional sum, consideration of financial hardship plea, lack of reasoning in the tribunal's order, remand for reasoned order, stay on further demand, setting aside of impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revision against order for deposit of additional sum:
The petitioner filed a revision against an order directing them to deposit a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000 within eight weeks from the date of the order. The Tribunal had already noted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 25,00,000 towards the disputed tax, and the additional sum was imposed for the appeal to be heard.

2. Consideration of financial hardship plea:
The petitioner had pleaded financial difficulty before the authority below, which was recorded by the Tribunal. However, no reason was provided for either accepting or rejecting the plea. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal should have considered the financial hardship factor before imposing the additional sum.

3. Lack of reasoning in the tribunal's order:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the order, it was observed that the order did not reflect the rationale behind imposing the additional sum. The lack of discussion on the financial hardship factor led to the decision being remanded back to the tribunal for a reasoned order.

4. Remand for reasoned order:
The High Court remanded the matter back to the tribunal with directions to pass a reasoned order considering the financial hardship factor of the petitioner. The tribunal was instructed to provide detailed reasons while evaluating the waiver application.

5. Stay on further demand and setting aside of impugned order:
During the remand period or for one month, whichever is earlier, no further demand was to be made from the petitioner towards the disputed tax. The impugned order dated 13-10-2008 was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

6. Communication to authorities:
A copy of the order was directed to be given to the learned Standing Counsel for the department for necessary communication to the authorities, with no costs incurred for the same.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court and the detailed directives provided in each aspect of the case.