2009 (10) TMI 922 - HC - Central Excise

High Court sets aside impugned order, emphasizing financial hardship. Petitioners' appeal allowed, remanded for rehearing.

The High Court found in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for rehearing. The Court ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are predeposit order, consideration of prima facie case and hardship, interpretation of section 3 and proviso to the Central Excise Act, 1944, and assessment of financial hardship in the context of the economy.The judgment addresses the petitioner's argument that no duty was demanded prior to a specific date and that withdrawal from EOU status was done on a certain date. The Tribunal did not address this point, which is crucial for determining hardship.Another aspect discussed is the interpretation of section 3 and the proviso to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner argues that if duty is not payable under section 3, then no duty can be demanded. This legal question was not raised before the Tribunal but needs to be answered.The Tribunal's assessment of hardship is also scrutinized. The Tribunal based its decision on the profit and loss account for a specific year without considering the nature of the income received. The High Court emphasizes that financial hardship should be evaluated in the context of the economy and market liquidity to avoid adverse effects on production and employment.The High Court concludes that the petitioners have established a prima facie case, and the issue of hardship needs further examination. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for rehearing and a new decision in accordance with the law.Additionally, a direction is given to the respondents not to take steps to recover the disputed amount during the appeal's pendency before the Tribunal.