9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi challenge an order dated 26th June, 1998 passed by the Tribunal in exercises of powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. No counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed and the wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained by the Tribunal. 4.The proviso to Section 35F, however, authorises the appellate authority to dispense with such deposit subject to such condition as it may deem fit, if it is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person. It is in the exercise of this power that the petitioners appealed to the Tribunal to waive the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of appeal under the Act by requiring the appellant to first deposit the adjudicated dues. The proviso empowers on the appellate authority to reduce the rigor of this restriction by partially or wholly waiving the condition of pre-deposit. Since the pre-deposit involves the finances of the appellants, the financial aspect of the appellants is the major determinant for exercising the powers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants have not made out a strong prima facie case, though at the same time it mentions that the matter is highly contentious. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal has not properly disposed of the petitioners' application for dispensing with the pre-deposit in terms of the proviso to Section 35F. 6.This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 26th June, 1998 is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
