9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery arguable points in the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner-unit also suffers from acute financial hardship. Considering such factors, the Tribunal ought to have fully waived pre-deposit requirement. However, in the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain such contentions. Our reasons are as follows: 2. Earlier, the petitioner, before the Tribunal had preferred application for pre-deposit waiver. On such application, the Tribunal had passed an order dated 11-7-2013 directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority, within twelve weeks from the date of the order. This amount came to nearly Rs. 1.65 crores. The petitioner thereupon applied for modification of such o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit of sizeable amount of Rs. 1.65 crore came to be imposed, in our opinion, the petitioners deserve one last opportunity to argue the petition for waiver of pre-deposit on merits before the tribunal. This however, cannot be done unconditionally. The petitioner must pay reasonable heavy cost for availing such an opportunity. 4. In facts of the case, therefore, orders dated 11-7-2013 and 24-10-2013 passed by the tribunal are set aside, The proceedings are placed back before the tribunal for consideration on merits and disposal in accordance with law. For such purpose, tentatively we fix the date of 21-4-2014 before the tribunal. This is only in order to ensure that no fresh notice shall have to be served to the parties of such proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 4-8-2014 before Deputy Registrar. Deputy Registrar, on ascertaining such compliance, will place the file before the Bench on 11-8-2014 for passing an appropriate order. Subject to such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal." 5. The petitioner once again filed an application for modification of the said order on the premise that in absence of participation from the consultant of the petitioner, all aspects could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on such application, passed its order dated 9-9-2014 which is impugned in this petition. After recording the submissions at length and that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
