1985 (2) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as stated that an application for dispensing with the deposit of the duty in issue was made. Presumably, the reference was to this application only, for there is no other application. In the circumstances, we treat this application as one under Section 35F of the Act also, since there can be no question of a stay of execution of the order under Appeal, unless the deposit in terms of Section 35F is dispensed with in the first instance. 2. In the course of his submissions, Shri Rangaswamy for the Applicant, relying upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1985 ECR 4 = [1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 - Assistant Collector of C.E., West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd.], submitted that this was pre-eminently a case where an interim order of stay has to be made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fer that it will not cause any undue hardship to the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate either, when despite a suggestion to that effect, the learned Counsel was reluctant to submit their balance sheet. 4. Admittedly, there is enough money to make the deposit but the Applicant would not make the deposit either because there is a good prima facie ease for him and an irreparable injury or gross violation of law will be perpetrated if the deposit is required to be made and stay not granted, or the money available is required for expenditure in the crushing season. 5. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 1985 ECR 4, relied upon, were, it cannot be overlooked, made in the context of the power to grant interim stay of recovery o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ince the law presumes that public authorities function properly and bona fide with due regard to the public interest, a Court must be circumspect in granting interim orders of far-reaching dimensions or orders causing administrative burdensome inconvenience or orders preventing the collection of public revenue for no better reason than that parties have come to the Court alleging prejudice, inconvenience or harm and that a prima facie case has been shown" [1985 ECR 4-underlining ours]. If this were so in the case of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the observations apply with greater force to the question of existence of & prima facie case in the context of Section 35F. 7. Again, it is far-fetched to say that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted or one which shakes the citizen's faith in the impartiality of public administration and has, therefore, to be stayed, regardless of the statutory requirement in-terms of Section 35F. The observations of the Supreme Court cannot, conceivably, be more transparently inapplicable than in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. This apart, these considerations are not germane when the question of insisting on the making of the deposit as a condition relating to the maintainability of the Appeal itself, in terms of Section 35F, is the issue. 8. The vague statement of requiring the money, admittedly available, for current manufacturing activities is not a plea that can commend itself to conclude "undue hardship" for dispensing with ....