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 could, while dealing with an adjournment request, direct further pre-deposit of the balance duty amount and treat non-compliance as a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
Analysis: The earlier order under Section 35F had already required deposit of a specified amount, which was complied with. The subsequent direction arose only because adjournment was sought for hearing along with connected matters. The Court held that Section 35F did not authorise the Tribunal to recall or effectively modify the earlier order merely on account of an adjournment request, especially when such a course prejudiced the petitioner without any proper basis. The Tribunal was required to act within the limits of its statutory power and with restraint.
Conclusion: The additional condition requiring deposit of the balance duty was not justified, and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority exercising power under a pre-deposit provision cannot, merely because an adjournment is sought, impose a fresh pre-deposit condition that effectively recalls or alters an earlier complied-with order unless the statute clearly permits such action.