Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1027 (ALL)

V. S. AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD. v. CEGAT, NEW DELHI

2001-11-09

P.K.JAIN

body2001
P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) BY the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14-9-2001 passed by respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure-1. A further prayer has been made to issue a suitable direction commanding the respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the Appeal No. E/1274/2001 on merit in accordance with law without insisting on pre-deposit. ( 2 ) SHRI Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Kesharwani, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent have been heard. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal in which he had specifically pleaded that his financial condition was very bad and he was not in a position to deposit the amount of excise duty levied. He has filed the balance sheet before the tribunal but the Tribunal without considering the financial stringency passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 8 lacs. Shri S. P. Kesharwani, learned standing counsel has submitted that financial stringency was not argued before the Tribunal as it appears from the impugned order. It is also argued that out of the amount of Rs. 50 lacs only 8 lac was directed to be deposited. ( 4 ) IN Paragraph 8 of the petition it is clearly stated that in the application filed under Section 35f of the Central Excise Act the petitioner had clearly made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit inasmuch as the financial condition of the petitioner was very bad. The application was accompanied by various documents including the account for the year ending 31st March, 2001. It is also stated that even though the financial stringency was pleaded but it has not been considered while passing the impugned order. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. There was no fun in filing various papers including the account and narrating about financial stringency without arguing the same. If in the impugned order the Tribunal has not mentioned about arguments in respect of financial stringency, it can not be said that no argument was advanced in respect of financial condition. ( 6 ) IN view of the forgoing discussions the petition is allowed. If in the impugned order the Tribunal has not mentioned about arguments in respect of financial stringency, it can not be said that no argument was advanced in respect of financial condition. ( 6 ) IN view of the forgoing discussions the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal for passing afresh order after considering the financial hardship of the petitioner. .