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 Appellate Authority properly exercised its discretion under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in refusing to dispense with pre-deposit of the disputed duty and penalty.
Analysis: The petition disclosed a strong prima facie case that the refinery gas and LSHS manufactured in the refinery were used within the same factory in the Xylene and Polyester Staple Fibre units. The units were shown to be under common management, common control, common utilities, a common factory licence, and an approved factory plan covering all the units. The impugned reasoning also failed to address the statutory test of undue hardship in its proper sense, which includes a substantial arguable case and requires consideration of whether waiver would imperil revenue. No material was shown to indicate that the revenue would be jeopardised, and the existing undertaking furnished to the Court remained available as safeguard.
Conclusion: The refusal to waive pre-deposit was not a proper exercise of discretion and was set aside; the appeal was to be heard without insisting on pre-deposit, subject to continuance of the undertaking.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the proviso to Section 35F, where the appellant shows a strong prima facie case and no prejudice to revenue is demonstrated, the appellate authority must ordinarily dispense with pre-deposit in favour of the assessee.