TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether sickness of the company under the BIFR scheme entitled it to waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under the Customs law. (ii) Whether the appellants had made out a sufficient prima facie case, including on limitation and merits, for total waiver of pre-deposit.
Issue (i): Whether sickness of the company under the BIFR scheme entitled it to waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under the Customs law.
Analysis: The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 operates independently of the protection available in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The principle applied was that statutory pre-deposit cannot be avoided merely because the appellant is a sick industrial company. The reasoning also treated the corresponding Central Excise pre-deposit provision as pari materia and followed the settled position that sickness under BIFR does not grant immunity from such deposit obligations.
Conclusion: The plea for total waiver on the sole ground of sickness under BIFR was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had made out a sufficient prima facie case, including on limitation and merits, for total waiver of pre-deposit.
Analysis: On merits, the presence of imported materials in the tested samples was treated as a strong prima facie indicator that the appellants had used ineligible raw materials, which undermined the claim for exemption. On limitation, the finding of concealment and intent to evade duty supported application of the extended period, and the limitation objection was not accepted at this stage. At the same time, the appellants' financial difficulties were taken into account while balancing the interests of revenue and the hardship pleaded by the appellants. The relief was therefore tailored as a partial waiver rather than a complete dispensation.
Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish a case for total waiver, but were granted partial waiver on condition of pre-deposit of 15% of the demanded duty amount.
Final Conclusion: The stay application was disposed of with conditional relief, the appellants being required to make a limited pre-deposit while the balance demand remained stayed during the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Sickness under BIFR does not by itself exempt an appellant from statutory pre-deposit, and waiver depends on a prima facie assessment of merits, limitation, hardship, and protection of revenue.
TaxTMI 
