2015 (1) TMI 630 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Undue hardship - Relief granted in similar previous situations - Held that - Merely because an interim order has been passed and granting unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery to one assessee does not mean that the others similarly situated can claim this relief as a matter of right. We have clarified in several orders passed by us that the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Wardha Coal Transport Private Limited - 2009 (1) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and the other orders relied upon cannot be construed as granting a legal right to approach the Higher Court on denial of interim relief raising this ground. We have referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. reported in 1985 (5) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and the attention of the Division Bench in M/s. Wardha Coal Transport Private Limited was not invited to this Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, there is no such rule and particularly as claimed. There may be some practice of passing consistent orders and that is what the Supreme Court brings to the notice of the authorities. However, by that itself and without anything more, we do not think that the appeal raises any substantial question of law. The order passed by the majority in this case is imminently fair and the reasons assigned for the same from the majority judgment do not raise any substantial question of law. - assessee is granted six weeks time to comply with the condition - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in imposing pre-deposit conditions on the appellant-assessee compared to similarly situated assessees.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the disparity in the imposition of pre-deposit conditions on the appellant-assessee as opposed to other similarly situated assessees. The appellant contended that while others had been granted unconditional relief, they were burdened with a pre-deposit condition of Rs. 15,00,000. The appellant, being an individual, argued that compliance with such a condition would be challenging and questioned the lack of consistency in the court's decisions. However, the court, after hearing arguments, disagreed with the appellant's assertion. The court emphasized that the mere granting of unconditional relief to one assessee did not automatically entitle others in similar situations to claim the same relief as a matter of right. The court cited previous orders and clarified that certain judgments did not establish a legal right to approach the Higher Court solely based on the denial of interim relief. Furthermore, the court referenced a Supreme Court judgment to highlight the absence of a specific rule granting such relief. Ultimately, the court found no substantial question of law raised by the appellant's appeal, deeming it devoid of merit and subsequently dismissing it.

In response to a request from the appellant's representative, the court granted the appellant six weeks to comply with the imposed condition.