TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty and penalties of Rs. 2.50 crores, within eight weeks from that date. To put the facts in proper perspective, we at the outset asked the appellants for justification of the following points :- (a) What modification is sought and for what ? (b) Admissibility of such modification application? 2. We were very clear in raising the above points because the statute or any enacting provisions therein, is so construed as to make effective and operative, on the principle expressed in the maxim, ut res magis valeat quam pereat. In this connection we gain strength from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Teja Singh - AIR 1959 SC 666. 3. Shri Naresh Thakka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Limited - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.) (ii) Delux Re-Rolling Metal Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 179 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. Learned Advocate submitted that they are willing to offer their residential Bungalow with plot area admeasuring 900 sq. yards (Municipal census No. 1054 + 1-2, Municipal Tenement No. 2713-001-00.T, Municipal Census No. 45/1-2/1, Municipal Tenement No. 2713-0001-00-0101-P, Survey No. 70/C (3), Paiki, FP No. 180, Paiki TPS No. 14 of Dariyapur-Kazipur) valued by a Govt. registered valuer and valued at Rs. 6.28 crores as surety/security for disposal of the appeal on merits. 5. Concluding his arguments, the learned Advocate submitted that they have strong case in thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a license to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legalit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dispensing with the deposit of duly demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing." 11. Two significant expressions used in the provisions are "undue hardship to such person" and "safeguard the interests of revenue". Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interest of Revenue have to be kept in view. 12. As noted above there are two important expressions in Section 35(F). One is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration of financial hardship. This measures up to the exacting standards of the Apex Court judgment. 10. Relying on this praemissa we proceed further. Considering the role and the reason of facts and legality of the issue, we are of the opinion that a modification of previous stay order is justified. Having gone through the balance sheet, bank certificate and various submissions, we are convinced that the applicant is undergoing a severe financial transgression. The genuineness is also clear from the offer of the applicant to pledge his residence in lieu of the pre-deposit in cash. 11. The plea for early hearing is agreeable on the ground that revenue involved is more than Rs. one crore. 12. After considering ....