Court denies petitioner's request for installment payment, citing lack of evidence and impact of amended law.

The court dismissed the petitioner's application for payment of the pre-deposit amount in installments, citing lack of evidence of financial difficulty and emphasizing the impact of the amendment in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, which reduced the necessity for waiver applications. The court upheld the validity of the amended section, highlighting its aim to minimize litigation and reduce discretionary powers. Consequently, the court found no grounds to entertain the application and dismissed it.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for payment of pre-deposit amount in installments.
2. Challenge to Order-In-Original before CESTAT.
3. Financial difficulty in paying pre-deposit amount.
4. Amendment in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought permission to pay a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 5,82,88,503 in two installments as per the court's order. The court had granted time until 15th November 2019 to deposit 7.5% of the total duty amount.

2. The challenge before CESTAT pertained to an Order-In-Original from 31st October 2017, demanding Rs. 77,71,80,036 as service tax along with penalties amounting to Rs. 54,78,10,695, to be paid with interest. The appeal required a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 5,82,88,503.

3. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide evidence of financial difficulty in paying the pre-deposit amount. No financial statements were annexed to demonstrate the claimed hardship, only a bare assertion was made. The court highlighted the waiver of 92.5% of the demand post-amendment in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, reducing the need for waiver applications and discretionary powers.

4. Post-amendment, the statute waived a significant portion of the tax and penalty demands, diminishing the necessity for waiver applications and reducing discretionary powers at CESTAT. The court emphasized that the amendment aimed to minimize litigation arising from waiver applications and upheld the validity of the amended Section 35F. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, finding no grounds to entertain it.

---