TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has recorded respective submissions and disposed of the aforesaid applications by giving dispensation of deposit of 75% of the duty demanded meaning thereby petitioner is directed to deposit 25% within a stipulated period. There is no reflection in the said, order relating to the net worth of the company or relating to the existence of a prima facie case which is one of the facet for consideration whether the appellant would suffer undue hardship, if the duty demanded is directed to be deposited - tribunal to decide the applications afresh - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P. No. 19214(W) of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - Harish Tandon, J. Shri Atish Dipankar Ray and Soumyajit Mishra, for the Petitioner. Shri R. Bhardwaj an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation afresh and to record the findings regarding net worth of the company. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court against the order of the Bombay High Court in case of Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.) where the Bombay High Court refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal disposing of an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 directing the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- by 30th September, 2005. 7. The Bombay High Court while passing the order took note of another judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 13, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merely establishing a prima 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 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion whether the appellant would suffer undue hardship, if the duty demanded is directed to be deposited. 14. In absence of the aforesaid finding, this Court feels that the order impugned is not sustainable. The same is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The matter is remanded to the CESTAT for consideration of the aforesaid three applications afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and it is expected that the Tribunal would make all endeavour to dispose of the said applications within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 16. Since the petitioner did not comply the said order dated 29th April, 2013 by which the three applications were disposed of with a direction to deposit 25% of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
