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 full waiver of pre-deposit was justified in the appeal proceedings, and whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case and financial hardship warranting complete stay of recovery.
Analysis: The applications were considered only for waiver of pre-deposit pending the appeal. The Court noted that the questions relating to limitation, duty liability under the job-work notification, and the merits of the demand would be examined at the stage of final hearing. On the material before it, the Court held that a prima facie case for complete waiver was not established, because the basic liability to pay central excise duty was treated as lying on the manufacturer, and the notification was understood as casting the supplier's responsibility in respect of the final product. The plea of financial hardship was also not accepted in full view of the sales turnover and the quantum of assets.
Conclusion: Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined. Partial relief was granted by directing deposit of specified amounts and staying recovery of the balance, while protection was extended in respect of the individual penalties.
Final Conclusion: The applications for waiver of pre-deposit were allowed only in part, with conditional deposit ordered and the remaining recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: In pre-deposit matters, complete waiver may be refused where no strong prima facie case or financial hardship is shown, and conditional protection may be granted instead.