Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of amounts confirmed against a proprietary concern, where no individual penalty had been imposed on them.
Analysis: The amount demanded arose from alleged liability confirmed against the proprietary concern and its proprietor. The order recorded that no individual penalties had been imposed on the present appellants under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It further noted that there was no provision shown for recovering interest and penalties imposed on a proprietor or concern from other individuals, and that such dues could at the highest be recovered from the proprietor of the concern, not from persons not prima facie connected with the firm's activities. On that basis, the appellants were found to have made out a prima facie case for protection against recovery pending disposal of the appeals.
Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of the disputed amounts was stayed till disposal of the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory provision authorising recovery, dues confirmed against a proprietary concern cannot be recovered from unrelated individuals, and a prima facie showing of such lack of liability justifies waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.