2013 (2) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....indranath, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.2798 of 2013. 2. In both the Writ Petitions, pre-deposit-cum-appeal order in Nos.6 and 7 of 2013 (M-ST (PD) in A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2012 (M-ST), passed by the first respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) have been challenged, seeking to quash the same as unlawful and unsustainable, with a further direction to the first respondent to dispose of Appeal Nos.395 and 396 of 2012 (M-ST) on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit of the amounts demanded in order in Original Nos.2 and 3 of 2012, dated 10.1.2012 made by the second respondent. 3. The main focus of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely came to the conclusion and ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 8.25 lakhs (Rs.7 lakhs + Rs. 1.25 lakhs) (Rupees eight lakhs and twenty five thousand only) to be paid in cash on or before 7.2.2013 under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, made applicable to service tax as per Section 83 of the Finance Act and the balance was waived. It was also observed in the impugned order that if the pre-deposit is not paid as ordered, the subject appeal will stand dismissed automatically. 6. Law is well settled that the capacity of a party to pay the pre-deposit amount had to be noticed and the financial burden and undue hardship for the party to resort to claim waiver of the pre-deposit have also to be considered. In this regard, learned counsel for the....