9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Modification of Stay Order regarding pre-deposit of penalties based on financial hardship plea. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the modification of a Stay Order issued by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, concerning the pre-deposit of penalties. The appellant, represented by Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate, argued for the modification of the Stay Order, emphasizing the plea of financial hardship due to the closure of the unit since March 2001. It was contended that this plea was not adequately considered when the Stay Order directed a 50% pre-deposit of the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. Additionally, it was highlighted that the penalties confirmed in the order were already covered by the Commissioner's adjudication in other cases. During the proceedings, the learned DR opposed the modification, asserting that all pleas, including financial hardship, had been taken into account in the original Stay Order. The tribunal, after hearing both sides, acknowledged that the plea of financial hardship raised by the appellant had not been adequately noted while determining the pre-deposit amounts. Consequently, the tribunal modified the order, directing M/s. Sujala Exports to deposit 25% of the penalty imposed on them within eight weeks, while maintaining the pre-deposit requirement of 50% for the remaining three applicants. Moreover, the tribunal stipulated that upon the deposit of the required percentages by the respective applicants within the specified timeframe, the pre-deposit of the remaining penalties would be waived, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeals. The judgment concluded with a directive for compliance reporting by a specified date, ensuring adherence to the modified pre-deposit conditions.
|
