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 tribunal's order directing pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 called for interference on the ground of undue hardship.
Analysis: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to insist upon a pre-deposit while entertaining the appeal under Section 35B, and it had taken into account the petitioner's prima facie case. However, the direction to deposit the entire amount of one crore rupees in a single lump sum was found to cause undue hardship on the facts of the case. The appropriate course was to preserve the pre-deposit requirement while easing the manner of compliance by permitting instalments.
Conclusion: The pre-deposit requirement was modified by permitting payment of one crore rupees in four equal instalments, and the appeal was to be heard after compliance. The relief was therefore in favour of the assessee only to that limited extent.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of rescheduling the pre-deposit, while the Tribunal's requirement of pre-deposit itself was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where pre-deposit is required as a condition for hearing an appeal, the authority's discretion must be exercised reasonably and may be moulded to avoid undue hardship without removing the statutory condition altogether.