Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        1985 (5) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Waiver of Penalty Pre-Deposit Granted with Conditions The Tribunal allowed the waiver of the pre-deposit of a penalty amount subject to the condition that the applicant deposits Rs. 10,000 within four weeks. ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Waiver of Penalty Pre-Deposit Granted with Conditions

                          The Tribunal allowed the waiver of the pre-deposit of a penalty amount subject to the condition that the applicant deposits Rs. 10,000 within four weeks. The decision emphasized that "undue hardship" under Section 129E of the Customs Act should consider factors beyond financial hardship, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and public interest. The dissenting opinion stressed the applicant's severe financial hardship and closure of business as justifying the waiver, while the majority highlighted the importance of overall financial position in determining undue hardship.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Whether the requirement of pre-deposit of the penalty amount should be waived due to the applicant's financial hardship.
                          2. Interpretation of "undue hardship" under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Waiver of Pre-deposit Due to Financial Hardship:
                          The applicant filed a stay application requesting the waiver of the pre-deposit of a penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to severe financial hardship. The applicant argued:
                          - The business was closed on 1-7-1983.
                          - Customs had seized goods worth Rs. 1,40,000/- in June 1983, and the attachment remained without any adjudication.
                          - The applicant had significant liabilities amounting to Rs. 12,24,120/- to banks and Rs. 52,320/- to tax authorities.
                          - The applicant could not afford the pre-deposit and suggested providing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,000/- instead.

                          The respondent (Customs Department) argued that the seized goods were part of a separate proceeding and should not influence the current case. They also questioned the credibility of the applicant due to a misdeclaration incident where rubbish was found instead of declared leather wallets.

                          The Tribunal noted that the applicant admitted to the misdeclaration but claimed it was unintentional. The Tribunal emphasized that undue hardship under Section 129E should not be based solely on financial hardship but must consider the overall context, including the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and public interest.

                          2. Interpretation of "Undue Hardship":
                          The Tribunal discussed the interpretation of "undue hardship" under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The key points included:
                          - "Undue hardship" should not be interpreted solely as financial hardship. It encompasses a broader context, including whether the impugned order is unjustifiable or inappropriate.
                          - The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd., which emphasized that interim orders should not be granted merely on financial hardship but must consider public interest and balance of convenience.

                          Separate Judgments:

                          Judgment by Member (Technical):
                          The Member (Technical) rejected the applicant's prayer for waiver of the pre-deposit, emphasizing that undue hardship should consider all relevant factors, not just financial hardship. The Member argued that the applicant did not demonstrate a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor. The financial position alone was insufficient to grant the stay.

                          Dissenting Judgment by Member (Judicial):
                          The Member (Judicial) dissented, arguing that the applicant's financial hardship was severe and undisputed. The Member emphasized that the closure of the business and significant liabilities justified waiving the pre-deposit. The Member argued that "undue hardship" should primarily consider financial difficulties, and denying the waiver would deprive the applicant of the right to appeal.

                          Opinion by Third Member (Judicial):
                          The third Member (Judicial) agreed with the dissenting opinion, emphasizing that the applicant's financial hardship warranted waiving the pre-deposit. The Member highlighted that liquidity and financial position were crucial factors in determining undue hardship.

                          Final Order:
                          Following the majority decision, the Tribunal allowed the waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount subject to the condition that the applicant deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within four weeks of the receipt of the order.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found