TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirmed demand amount so as to fulfil the condition of pre-deposit. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi, approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (T) No. 441 of 2012. Said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3-2-2012 and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi was set aside and the said authority was directed to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi, after hearing the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 11-4-2012 withdrew that benefit which was given to the writ petitioner when he was not heard and directed the petitioner to deposit full demand amount. Therefore, if petitioner would not have got the opportunity of hearing, he would have to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand created by the impugned order which was under challenge before the appellate authority and when petitioner was given opportunity of hearing, he is directed to pay the entire amount of demand. The petitioner, therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which he is not liable to pay, in that situation, it may result into undue hardship because of the demand only. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another reported in (2006) 13 SCC 347 = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.) = 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) has considered in detail what is "undue hardship" which is required to be considered while passing orders of interim nature in such type of matters. The said case of Benara Valves Ltd. has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us Justice Prakash Tatia, C.J. was member) in the case of Tata Motors Limited v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (T) No. 705 of 2012] decided on 15-2-2012. In the case of Tata Motors (supra) it appears, inadvertently citation has wrongly been mentioned as (2006) 204 Supreme Court Cases 513 (SC), whereas correct citation is (2006) 13 SCC 347 and equivalent citation is 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.). It is submitted that so far as undue hardship and all other considerations are concerne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the agreement in question and the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Service Tax, Ranchi in its order dated 11-4-2012. We are of the considered opinion that the same authority, on earlier occasion, when it decided the application without giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, partly allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand for maintaining the appeal and when this Court directed the same authority to give opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, it rejected the application of the writ petitioner for exemption from condition of pre-deposit. 8. Be that as it may, so far as prima facie case is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the issue as has been considered by the appellate authority i.e., Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise Service Tax, Ranchi, itself shows that the issue of not only question of fact but question of law has been successfully raised by the writ petitioner before the appellate authority even at. the time of arguing the application for exemption from condition of pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the petitioner in worse position than the earlier order which was passed ex parte asking the petitioner to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand for maintaining the appeal. Therefore, the question of undue hardship has already been assessed by the authority itself when it passed the order dated 19-12-2011 and we are of the considered opinion that in that fact situation, the petitioner's application for exemption from condition of pre-deposit deserves to be allowed in terms of the relief as granted by order dated 19-12-2011. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed in W.P. (T) No. 2233 of 2012 [2013 (288) E.L.T. 59 (Jhar.)] in the case of The Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, this Court, after considering the fact of petitioner's case of that writ petition itself, has granted relief to the writ petitioner of M/s. Tinplate Company to the effect that in view of the delay already caused in the litigation, the appellate authority may decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and till then, requirement of condition of pre-deposit shall remain suspended. Learned counsel for the pet....