Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 417 - HC - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit - undue hardship - Held that:- A mere assertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient. It was noted by this Court in S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1993 (3) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that under Indian conditions expression "Undue hardship" is normally related to economic hardship. "Undue" which means something which is not merited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very much disproportionate to it. Undue hardship is caused when the hardship is not warranted by the circumstances. If a litigant has got strong prima facie case, then the same can be treated within the fold of undue hardship. But, there are no guidelines in which cases and when undue hardship relatable to prima facie case can be perceived. According to us, it depends upon each and every individual case. Without laying down any exhaustive guidelines, we think that following will be useful for adjudicating the application for waiver of full deposit by the Commissioner as well as this Court - Commissioner has exercised his jurisdiction judiciously as we notice it is in the category of arguable case and the condition of pre-deposit of 50% of the duty demanded is not unjustified. We think that to meet the ends of justice, time granted by the learned Commissioner for depositing of the amount of pre-deposit should be extended. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|