Tribunal denies modification request citing undervaluation and financial hardship. Compliance extended, evidence crucial.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to modify the stay order based on under valuation of goods and financial hardship. Despite acknowledging the financial difficulties claimed by the applicant, the Tribunal refused to accept new documents as evidence in the modification application. The Tribunal extended the compliance period by six weeks but warned of dismissal if the conditions were not met. The decision underscores the importance of presenting all relevant evidence during adjudication and following procedural rules when seeking modifications to stay orders.

---

---

Issues: Stay order modification based on under valuation of goods, financial hardship claim, acceptance of new documents as evidence.

Under Valuation of Goods: The applicant sought modification of a stay order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 90,00,000 based on confirmed duty demand due to under valuation of goods sold to related persons. The applicant argued that the related persons sold the goods in the market at a lower price than determined by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted that the documents supporting this claim were not presented to the Adjudicating Authority initially. The Ld. AR for the Revenue contended that these new documents should be accepted as additional evidence as per CESTAT Procedural Rules.

Financial Hardship Claim: The applicant pleaded financial difficulty, submitting a profit & loss statement and balance sheet ending on 31.03.2014. The applicant highlighted outstanding trade creditors, receivables, and loans, along with a net profit of Rs. 27,62,962.52. The Ld. Advocate cited precedents to support the claim of financial hardship, emphasizing the need for additional evidence to justify the interim relief sought.

Acceptance of New Documents: The Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the applicant with the Miscellaneous Application were new evidence not presented during the adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal held that such new evidence could not be accepted in the Application for Modification of the stay order. Despite acknowledging the financial hardship claimed by the applicant, the Tribunal extended the compliance period by six weeks, warning that non-compliance would result in dismissal of the appeal.

This judgment delves into the nuances of stay order modification, the requirement for additional evidence, and the consideration of financial hardship in legal proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant documents during adjudication and highlighted the significance of adhering to procedural rules in seeking modifications to stay orders.

---