9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 183 - HC - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Financial hardhip - Held that - On merits, there is no serious plea with regard to the compliance of the order of pre-deposit. The only ground raised now, as has been raised before the Tribunal, is financial hardship. On that score alone, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal for modification of the order of the Tribunal ordering pre-deposit of ₹ 3.00 lakhs as against the demand of ₹ 7,92,877/-. However, taking note of the nature of financial difficulty pleaded by the appellant, we grant time for compliance of the pre-deposit till 27.2.2015 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Rejection of Modification Application 2. Duty liability for non-observance of export procedure 3. Presumption of manufacture and clandestine removal 4. Passing order under Section 35-F after partial compliance Analysis: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer and exporter of cotton made-ups articles, faced a show cause notice for diverting cotton yarn without paying duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. The appellant appealed, citing financial hardship. The High Court noted no serious plea on compliance but granted time for the pre-deposit until 27.2.2015, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly. 2. The Tribunal required the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, which was challenged on grounds of financial hardship. The High Court observed no significant plea on compliance but considered the financial difficulty raised by the appellant. The Court granted an extension for the pre-deposit until 27.2.2015, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly. Failure to comply by the specified date would confirm the Tribunal's original order. 3. The case involved allegations of diversion of cotton yarn without paying duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit, which was challenged citing financial hardship. The High Court noted no serious plea on compliance but considered the financial difficulty raised by the appellant, granting an extension for the pre-deposit until 27.2.2015. 4. The Tribunal's order directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs was challenged on grounds of financial hardship. The High Court noted no serious plea on compliance but considered the financial difficulty raised by the appellant. An extension was granted for the pre-deposit until 27.2.2015, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly. Failure to comply by the specified date would confirm the Tribunal's original order under Section 35-F.
|
