9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise (Appeals), Delhi under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act), on applications filed by the petitioners seeking waiver of pre-deposits as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals by the impugned orders, these applications have been disposed of directing the petitioners to deposit certain amounts except in CWP No. 4762/2002, in all other cases the petitioners have been directed to deposit the entire additional demand of excise duty and the penalty. 5.Except for the first paragraph, which mentions the particulars of each of the assessees; the amount of excise duty demanded and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, all the orders are identically worded. The relevant portion of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, making out a strong case for stay of the entire demand. The petitioners pray that the impugned orders be quashed and the first appellate authority be directed to entertain and hear their appeals on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. 7.The petitions are resisted by the respondents. Reply affidavits have been filed by the Commissioner in three petitions. It is stated that in view of the fact that petitioners had not pleaded undue hardship, there was no reason to grant any relief on this ground. It is pleaded that the petitioners in their appeals had only urged grounds on the merits of the appeals rather than providing any reason as to the manner in which they would suffer undue hardship. 8.We have heard learned Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Usha Udyog v. CEGAT, 2000 (86) DLT 667 (DB). 10.In order to appreciate the rival submissions it would be appropriate to have a birds eye view of the total demands and the amounts directed to be deposited by the Commissioner in each of the cases, which are as under : Srl. No. Case No. Total Amount (Rs.) Directed demand to be paid (Rs.) 1. CWP 4040/2002 7,20,074 7,20,074 (including penalty) 2. CWP 4160/2002 16,58,656 13,33,656 [including Rs 3,25,000/ redemption fine and stood paid earlier) personal penalty] 3. CWP 4575/2002 8,51,962 8,51,962 (including penalty) 4. CWP 4762/2002 14,85,188 5,00,000 + 14,85,188 (penalty) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue, it was said that the term "opinion" means "judgment of belief, that is a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. If a man is to form an opinion, and his opinion is to govern, he must form it himself on such reasons and grounds as seem good to him". It was further observed that "hardship", within the meaning of the said Section, connotes something harsher and more severe than trifling inconvenience, and negligible loss of profit or temporary loss of a commercial opportunity. Language used in Section 35F is not merely "hardship". It is undue hardship. For a hardship to become "undue" it must be shown that the particular burden which is required to be observed or performed is out of prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioners was that the pre-deposit of any amount would cause undue financial hardship to them. In fact, learned Counsel for the petitioners have stated that except in one case, they had not pleaded any financial hardship before the Commissioner. We have mentioned this fact as an illustration to indicate that the orders have been passed by the Commissioner mechanically in a casual manner without even noticing the facts of each case individually and appreciating the contentions urged. It appears to us that the orders are passed on some sort of a pre-devised proforma, which cannot be appreciated and approved. In our view such orders cannot be expected from an authority performing quasi-judicial function. 15.For the foregoing reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
