TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the stay application solely on the ground of absence of a prima facie case without considering the plea of financial hardship under the proviso to section 35F of the Central Excises Act.
Analysis: The Tribunal rejected the stay request only on the ground that no prima facie case was made out. The plea of financial hardship, though raised and noted, was not considered at all. Since consideration of financial hardship was material under the proviso to section 35F, the rejection order could not stand and the matter required reconsideration by the Tribunal itself.
Conclusion: The rejection of the stay application was unsustainable and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the stay application after taking into account the plea of financial hardship.
Ratio Decidendi: A stay application under the proviso to section 35F cannot be decided by considering only the prima facie case when the plea of financial hardship is raised; both aspects must be considered before granting or refusing stay.
TaxTMI 
