High Court directs partial payment in writ petition, sets deadline, warns of consequences

The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing one petitioner to deposit a reduced amount based on financial constraints and waiving the balance. The larger petitioner was instructed to deposit the remaining sum within a stipulated period. Failure to comply would result in consequences under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Each party was to bear its own costs in the matter.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Withdrawal of writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues. Financial hardship faced by petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners, two cigarette manufacturers, challenged orders passed by the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to jointly deposit a significant sum as excise duty and penalties. The petitioners contended that undue financial hardship would be caused if the entire amount was to be deposited upfront, citing the Tribunal's observation of their small profits. However, the Union of India argued that the subsequent petition was not maintainable after the withdrawal of an earlier writ petition without seeking permission for a fresh petition, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The High Court noted that the withdrawal of the earlier petition was not independent of the subsequent petition and held that challenging the earlier order was impermissible.

The High Court further analyzed the subsequent order dated 27th January, 1994, passed by the Tribunal treating the petitioners' applications as fresh. The Tribunal had observed that the companies were making small profits but did not specify individual financial positions. One petitioner showed accumulated losses in its balance sheet, indicating financial strain. The High Court found that the Tribunal's direction for joint deposit by both petitioners was inappropriate. It ordered one petitioner to deposit a smaller amount based on its financial situation and allowed waiver of the balance. The other petitioner, a larger company, was directed to deposit the remaining sum within a specified time frame.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing one petitioner to deposit a reduced amount based on financial constraints and waiving the balance. The larger petitioner was instructed to deposit the remaining sum within a stipulated period. Failure to comply would result in consequences under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Each party was to bear its own costs in the matter.

---