TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court grants appeal without pre-deposit in commercial production case</h1> <h3>M/s VEGA AUTO ACCESSORIES (PVT) LTD Versus REGISTRAR, CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, & ANR.</h3> M/s VEGA AUTO ACCESSORIES (PVT) LTD Versus REGISTRAR, CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, & ANR. - 2018 (361) E.L.T. 202 (Del.) , 2018 (14) ... Issues:1. Commencement of commercial production before the specified date for exemption eligibility.2. Admissibility of appeal without pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.3. Financial hardship and distress faced by the petitioner.Analysis:Issue 1: Commencement of Commercial ProductionThe case involved adverse orders-in-original passed against the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rampur, regarding the commencement of commercial production before 31st March, 2010, a prerequisite for exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE dated 10th June, 2003. The Tribunal, in an order dated 6th February, 2017, ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that commercial production had indeed commenced before the specified date. This decision was not appealed by the Revenue to the Supreme Court, leading to the finality of the Tribunal's order.Issue 2: Admissibility of Appeal without Pre-depositThe petitioner sought admission and hearing of an appeal without pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, citing the finality of the Tribunal's decision in their favor. The High Court accepted the petitioner's plea, considering the settled issue in previous orders and the financial hardship faced by the petitioner, as evidenced by substantial accumulated losses and previous pre-deposits not being refunded.Issue 3: Financial Hardship of the PetitionerThe petitioner demonstrated financial distress through its balance sheet and profit and loss account, showing significant accumulated losses. The Court acknowledged the financial burden faced by the petitioner, noting the previous pre-deposit made and the additional amount required, which would exacerbate the financial strain. Citing precedents and considering the financial hardship, the Court directed the Tribunal to admit and hear the appeal without requiring the pre-deposit of tax and penalty, emphasizing that the merits of the appeal and the specific issue of commercial production commencement were not addressed in the judgment.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment favored the petitioner, allowing the appeal to be heard without pre-deposit due to the finality of the Tribunal's decision and the petitioner's financial distress, as evidenced by substantial losses and previous financial commitments.
TaxTMI 