Just a moment...
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 Tribunal was justified in directing partial pre-deposit and refusing full waiver despite the petitioner's plea of financial hardship and registration as a sick unit with the BIFR.
Analysis: In an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal must balance the applicant's claim of undue hardship with the need to protect revenue interests. The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had not made out a strong prima facie case for complete waiver and, after considering the overall financial position and the total demand, directed deposit of only a fraction of the duty amount. Mere registration as a sick unit with the BIFR did not, by itself, establish that the Tribunal had ignored the relevant factors or that full waiver was mandatory. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not automatically exempt pre-deposit obligations under Section 35F.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order did not suffer from legal infirmity, and the challenge to insistence on pre-deposit failed.
Ratio Decidendi: While considering waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal must weigh undue hardship against revenue protection, and BIFR registration alone does not entitle the assessee to complete waiver.