9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 60 - HC - Central ExcisePre-deposit - Requirement of mandatory pre-deposit u/s 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - financial hardship involved in such compliance - HELD THAT - A perusal of the application would go on to show that the merits of the case had been addressed as to the liability of the petitioner to pay service tax as in the application there has been no such averment made regarding the undue hardship which would be caused to the petitioner which the Tribunal could have decided upon regarding dispensing with the liability subject to certain conditions. The amount mentioned in the application itself is Rs. 10,08,243/- and bare averment has been made that it would lead to great financial hardship to the appellant-firm which has already raised loans to the extent of Rs. 12,49,76,747/- which are outstanding. Keeping in view the earlier decision of this Court in M/S G.D. GOENKA WORLD INSTITUTE, SANJAY AGGARWAL, M/S IL FS RAIL LIMITED, M/S AUTO DYNAMIC CORPORATION, M/S OCEANIC CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S G.D. GOENKA WORLD INSTITUTE (UNIT OF GDG EDUCATION TRUST) , TARUN MONGA AND M/S SWIFT FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER 2018 (11) TMI 522 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , the Tribunal was well justified in insisting for the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 35-F of the Act. It was for the petitioner who had to put-forth his case in the application in a detailed manner as to how undue hardship would be caused to him. The present writ petition warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
Issues involved:
Challenge to order directing compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994. Summary: The writ petition challenged an order directing compliance with a mandatory pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments to conclude that it had no power to entertain the appeal without the pre-deposit. The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit would cause undue financial hardship, but the Court found that the application for exemption did not adequately address this issue. Considering previous decisions, the Court upheld the requirement for the pre-deposit and dismissed the writ petition, granting an extension for the deposit to be made. Judgment Details: The petitioner challenged an order requiring compliance with a mandatory pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal based its decision on previous judgments, including one involving M/s G.D. Goenka World Institute. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit would cause financial hardship, but the Court found the application for exemption lacked sufficient detail on this aspect. The Court upheld the pre-deposit requirement, citing the need for the petitioner to present a detailed case on the financial hardship issue before the Tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed, with an extension granted for the deposit deadline.
|
