9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order directing pre-deposit of amount by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Failure to consider factual aspects in stay application - Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with directions - Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty - Financial hardship faced by the petitioner - Tribunal's duty to consider facts in waiver application. Analysis: The petitioner, a public limited company, sought a direction to rescind an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 32 lakhs. The Tribunal's order was challenged for allegedly ignoring factual aspects in the stay application. Despite the petitioner serving the Tribunal with a copy of the writ petition, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. The petitioner then filed a supplementary affidavit, which was served on the Tribunal. The impugned order highlighted the chemical test report against the appellants and directed the pre-deposit due to financial difficulties faced by them. The petitioner had applied for dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement based on financial hardship, which the Tribunal failed to consider adequately. The High Court set aside the orders directing pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal, instructing the Tribunal to hear the stay application on merits with a reasoned order after hearing both parties. The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not properly address the factual details in the petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The petitioner, being a BIFR company, had expressed concerns about financial hardship, which should have been considered by the Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal's failure to take into account the facts mentioned in the stay application rendered the orders unsustainable. Consequently, the orders directing pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal were quashed, and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the application for stay, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the matter. The Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal considering all relevant factual aspects, especially regarding financial hardship, when making decisions on pre-deposit requirements in such cases.
|
