Court reduces pre-deposit amount in appeal, acknowledges financial constraints under RERA

The court directed the petitioner to deposit 2.5% of the liability instead of the required 7.5% pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal against the original order. The court acknowledged financial constraints due to proceedings under RERA and the inability to set off the pre-deposit obligation against the CENVAT credit refund claim. The appeal was not rejected solely for the lack of the full pre-deposit amount, with the court refraining from commenting on the case's merits. All pending applications were resolved, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of 7.5% of duty for maintaining an appeal against the order in original.
2. Claim of entitlement to refund of CENVAT credit.
3. Error in raising demand due to erroneous premise regarding availing of abatement and CENVAT credits.
4. Reference to a favorable decision in the case of petitioner's sister concern.
5. Appeal rendered illusory due to inability to make pre-deposit.
6. Commencement of proceedings under Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and lack of adequate funds for pre-deposit.
7. Contention regarding setting off obligation to make pre-deposit against claim for refund of CENVAT credit.
8. Agreement to make a deposit equal to 2.5% of liability instead of 7.5%.
9. Direction to accept appeal if petitioner deposits 2.5% of liability.
10. Refraining from making observations on the merits of the case.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought waiver of the pre-deposit of 7.5% of duty to maintain an appeal against the order in original. The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund of CENVAT credit, highlighting that the demand was raised on an erroneous premise related to availing abatement and CENVAT credits. The petitioner's counsel referenced a favorable decision in a related case, emphasizing a strong case on merits but inability to make the required pre-deposit, rendering the appeal illusory.

Moreover, the petitioner faced financial constraints due to proceedings under RERA and lacked liquid funds for the pre-deposit. The court acknowledged the inability to set off the obligation for pre-deposit against the CENVAT credit refund claim but recognized the appeal's potential illusory nature without sufficient funds. Eventually, after discussions, the petitioner agreed to deposit 2.5% of the liability instead of 7.5%, leading the court to direct that the appeal would not be rejected solely for the lack of the requisite pre-deposit.

The court refrained from commenting on the case's merits, disposing of the petition based on the agreed terms. All pending applications were also resolved as part of the judgment, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the pre-deposit requirement and the appeal process against the original order.

---