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 assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of financial incapacity and registration before the BIFR, and whether such registration protected it from the pre-deposit obligation.
Analysis: The appeal turned on the applicability of the pre-deposit requirement to the assessee's challenge against the demand raised under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that the assessee had not established inability to comply with the direction to deposit the amount and that mere pendency before the BIFR did not suspend the obligation to make pre-deposit. Reliance was placed on the principle that pre-deposit under section 35F does not fall within the categories protected by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to waiver of pre-deposit, and the BIFR registration did not exempt it from compliance with the order requiring deposit.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the pre-deposit requirement failed, and the assessee's appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Registration before the BIFR does not, by itself, suspend or waive a statutory pre-deposit obligation under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unless the assessee independently establishes grounds warranting such relief.