Appeal challenging Tribunal's pre-deposit order dismissed; court emphasizes fair consideration of financial hardship pleas.

The appeal challenging the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 for hearing was dismissed. The court held that the Tribunal's decision did not warrant interference, emphasizing that the lack of detailed reasons for considering financial hardship did not render the order illegal. The court cautioned the Tribunal against mechanically dismissing appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions and allowed the appellant to raise financial difficulties at a later stage for assessment. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, highlighting the need for the Tribunal to fairly consider financial hardship pleas before dismissing appeals for non-compliance.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal directing pre-deposit for hearing of appeal; Financial hardship consideration by Tribunal.

Challenge to Tribunal's Order: The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Tribunal directing pre-deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- against excise duty and penalty liability of Rs. 82,30,908.62 for hearing of its appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that the Tribunal's discretion did not warrant interference.

Financial Hardship Consideration: The appellant argued that due to a subsequent decision of the Tribunal and alleged lack of proper consideration of financial hardship, the court should intervene. The court held that if a change in legal position occurred due to a subsequent decision, the appellant could seek modification from the Tribunal. Regarding financial hardship, the court opined that the Tribunal did consider this aspect, even though not elaborately. The lack of detailed reasons did not render the Tribunal's order illegal. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Observations and Directions: The court cautioned the Tribunal against mechanically dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. It allowed the appellant to raise a plea of financial difficulties at a later stage, which the Tribunal must assess on merit. If accepted, the appeal would proceed on merits; if not, the Tribunal could dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The appeal was ultimately dismissed with the above observations, emphasizing the Tribunal's need to fairly consider financial hardship pleas before dismissing appeals for non-compliance.

---