2014 (8) TMI 845 - HC - Customs

Court sets aside order for pre-deposit, emphasizes consistency in applying law.

M/s. Sahil International Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and The Assistant Commissioner of Customs

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the order directing a pre-deposit for a statutory appeal. Emphasizing that hardship extends beyond ... Waiver of pre deposit - Undue hardship - Held that:- Hardship is not merely confined to financial hardship. The hardship caused by the inconsistent stand taken by the very same authority, due to the change of officers, is also a hardship that should be taken into account. Assessees are obliged to take note of how a particular point of fact or law is viewed by an authority and they will be justified in seeking consistency of views - Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Prakash D.Mehta v. Collector of Customs [1988 (8) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the respondents have taken a stand in a detailed counter affidavit filed by them that in the absence of financial hardships for the petitioner, he is not entitled to the waiver of the pre-condition deposit. But, as I have stated earlier, hardship need not necessarily arise out of financial hardship. Each officer treating the very same material of import in a different manner, will certainly cause hardship to the assessee and it is this hardship that should have waived the mind of the respondents - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Challenge to order directing pre-deposit for statutory appeal.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs for entertaining a statutory appeal. The court considered the issue of hardship in relation to the pre-deposit condition. The Appellate Authority is mandated to assess hardship based on specific parameters. The petitioner presented three orders by the Commissioner of Appeals, two favoring another company and one in favor of the petitioner. However, the impugned order simply rejected the previous orders without providing reasons for disagreement.The court emphasized that hardship extends beyond financial aspects. The inconsistency resulting from different officers' interpretations of the same material can also constitute hardship. The need for consistency in the application of law and facts by authorities was highlighted. The respondents argued against waiving the pre-deposit based on lack of financial hardship, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the court clarified that hardship is not limited to financial constraints and noted that varying treatment of the same material by different officers can indeed cause hardship to the assessee.Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order. The respondents were directed to entertain the appeal without any conditions and to issue appropriate orders within eight weeks. The judgment concluded by closing the related motion without imposing any costs.