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's order directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and refusing full waiver called for interference.
Analysis: The condition of pre-deposit is a statutory requirement for entertaining an appeal, and the appellate authority may dispense with it only on being satisfied that deposit would cause undue hardship and that the revenue's interest can be safeguarded by suitable conditions. In deciding such a request, relevant considerations include prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest. The order under challenge recorded a prima facie view against the applicants on the nature of inputs and eligibility for exemption, and also dealt with the plea of financial hardship on the basis of the materials placed before it. The High Court found no infirmity in that exercise of discretion warranting interference.
Conclusion: Interference with the pre-deposit order was declined, and the direction requiring deposit was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, waiver of pre-deposit is justified only where undue hardship is shown and revenue interests can be protected, and an appellate order exercising that discretion will not be disturbed absent legal infirmity.
TaxTMI 
