Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2008 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (7) TMI 368 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
Challenge to orders directing deposit of a sum of Rs. 2 crores out of total demand of Rs. 4.02 crores by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 for exemption from duty liability. Application of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Concept of 'undue hardship' as per Supreme Court judgment in Benara Valves Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr.

Analysis:
The petition challenges CESTAT's orders directing a deposit of Rs. 2 crores out of a total demand of Rs. 4.02 crores. The petitioner argued for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000, which was not initially claimed during the hearing. CESTAT rejected the modification application, noting the petitioner's failure to deposit the admitted duty liability of Rs. 90 lakhs and the Commissioner's denial of the benefit under the Notification. The Tribunal extended the compliance period but dismissed the modification application. The petitioner contended that the order was erroneous as the duty liability should not apply due to the Notification. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to modify the order, considering the financial position and the Commissioner's findings.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'undue hardship' in Benara Valves Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. was discussed. The Court emphasized that undue hardship must be shown to be excessive or greater than warranted by circumstances. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision caused undue hardship, but the Court disagreed. It noted that the Tribunal had considered the financial condition of the petitioner and the non-payment of the admitted duty liability. The petitioner's partial acceptance of the demand indicated possible ineligibility for total exemption under the Notification. The Court concluded that the impugned order did not result in excessive hardship or hardship beyond warranted circumstances, rejecting the petition for lacking merit.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates