Appellant's Monthly Payment Plan Denied, Timeline Extended.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's request to deposit the required amount in monthly installments due to financial constraints, citing that no new grounds justified a modification of the original order. Despite the dismissal, the Tribunal extended the time period for depositing the amount by eight weeks, emphasizing that the initial order was based on the appellant's willingness to comply and that existing circumstances did not warrant a change in payment terms.

---

---

Issues:
1. Request for allowing deposit in monthly installments due to financial difficulty.
2. Justification for modification of the order to deposit the amount in installments.
3. Closure of units and limited cash availability as reasons for modification.
4. Consideration of previous arrangements with U.P. Power Corporation Limited.
5. Dismissal of the application for modification but extension of the time period for deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought permission to deposit the required amount in monthly installments of Rs. 5 lakhs due to financial constraints. They had already deposited Rs. 15 lakhs as per the previous order.

2. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 crore within twelve weeks based on the prima facie evidence of duty evasion. The appellant's willingness to deposit this amount was recorded in the order dated 5-2-2009. The request for installment payments was denied as no new facts warranted a modification of the original order.

3. The closure of two units and having only Rs. 17 lakhs in cash were cited as reasons for seeking a modification. However, these circumstances existed before the order was passed, and thus were not considered as justifications for altering the payment terms.

4. The appellant's arrangement with U.P. Power Corporation Limited was mentioned, but it was deemed irrelevant as it predated the original order. The Tribunal emphasized that all relevant facts were known when the initial order was issued.

5. The application for modification was dismissed as no new grounds were presented to warrant a change. However, the time period for depositing the amount was extended by another eight weeks, with compliance required by a specified date. The Tribunal emphasized that the original order was based on the appellant's willingness to deposit the required sum and no new circumstances justified a modification.

This detailed analysis highlights the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for modifying the payment terms based on the appellant's financial difficulties and previous arrangements, while extending the time for compliance with the original order.

---