Financial hardship in cash deposit orders requires a fresh hearing before rejection of dispensation.

An order directing deposit of duty in cash was unsustainable where the petitioner was not given a fresh opportunity to place material on financial hardship. The Tribunal had rejected dispensation of cash deposit by relying on balance sheet profits, but the Court held that the issue of inability to deposit required reconsideration on proper hearing. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on financial hardship, with liberty to pass an order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order requiring deposit of duty in cash, without affording a fresh opportunity to establish financial hardship, was sustainable.

Analysis: The petitioner contended that it had not been heard effectively on the question of financial hardship and that the Tribunal had rejected the request for dispensation of cash deposit on the basis of its balance sheet profits. The Court held that the petitioner should have been given a fresh opportunity to place material on financial hardship before the Tribunal. Since the question of inability to deposit the duty in cash required reconsideration, the impugned order could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing on financial hardship, with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

---