TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Holla Holla, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. N. Mohan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J]. - The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who set aside the order passed by the Tribunal waiving the pre-deposit in preferring the appeal filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. 2. The appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with the object of carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of telephone equipments and other allied objects. During the period September 2003 and December 2003, the appellant imported certain consignment of parts/components and accessories of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judge held that the appellant did not plead undue hardship as a ground of seeking full waiving of pre-deposit and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting the full waiver. Therefore, it set aside the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that, what is manufactured was the component of a mobile hand set, which is clearly exempted form payment of customs duty; in fact, the authorities accepted the said contention and extended the benefit and it is only after 2 years 3 months, proceedings were re-opened and the custom duty was sought to be levied. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the pre-deposit in other words, if the said judgment of the Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of this case, there is no liability to pay tax. When there is no liability to pay tax, merely because the authorities took a contrary view in an appeal, if the pre-deposit is insisted upon, it would not only cause undue hardship, but would also cause untold misery to the appellant. In that view of the matter and in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal granting complete waiver of pre-deposit was legal and justified. It ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
