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>Customs Tribunal Upheld Pre-Deposit Order</h1> <h3>SPGC. METAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. Versus CEGAT</h3> The Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 3,65,000/- under Section 35F of Central ... Appeal - Pre-deposit of duty Issues:- Appeal against Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order under Section 35F of Central Act I of 1944.- Whether the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 3,65,000/- would cause undue hardship to the appellant.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order, which required a pre-deposit of Rs. 3,65,000/- under Section 35F of Central Act I of 1944. The main issue was whether this pre-deposit amount would cause undue hardship to the appellant. The Tribunal had waived the demand related to biscuit tin components but directed the pre-deposit for other categories of demands. The appellant argued that the Tribunal misunderstood the amount claimed and contended that the entire duty amount was claimed, not just half as perceived by the Tribunal.The Court emphasized that the only relevant consideration at this stage was whether the pre-deposit would cause undue hardship based on the appellant's financial ability. The appellant's substantial turnover and recoverable debts were taken into account to assess its financial capacity to raise the necessary funds for the pre-deposit. The Court concluded that the appellant had the financial ability to meet the pre-deposit requirement, even if it lacked liquid cash, and found no basis to consider the Tribunal's decision as flawed or unjust.The appellant cited precedents such as Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, U.P. Lamination v. Union of India and Others, Asha Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, and Ashoka Rubber Products v. Collector of Central Excise to challenge the Tribunal's decision. However, the Court distinguished these cases and upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that the financial ability of the appellant was properly considered, and the waiver granted for certain demands indicated a fair assessment by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and extended the time for pre-deposit until 31-12-1989.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
