TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion as to whether insistence on pre-deposit of the custom duty would have caused undue hardship to the petitioner. It is also observed that the respondents have not filed any document nor have they controverted the assertion of the petitioner. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - W.P No. 3537/2007 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - U.C. Maheshari And R.S. Jha, JJ ORDER Per R. S. Jha, J :- Smt. Nandita Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Anuradha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 11.6.2007, Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, by order dated 14.12.2006 finally decided the appeal and while allowing depreciation and relief under other heads, reduced the liability towards custom duty of the petitioner to ₹ 18,50,939/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, filed an appeal before respondent no.1 Tribunal alongwith an application under Section 129E of the Act, for exemption from paying the custom duty assessed by the appellate authority. The application, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by order dated 11.6.2007, hence this petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as there was a Hire Purchase Agreement between the petitioner and M/s Tata Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as 'the SARFASI Act'). It is stated that as the assets of the petitioner have been disposed of, therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to pay custom duty as ordered by the Tribunal. It is also alleged that the petitioner has no cash or bank balance and, therefore, if the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is enforced, the petitioner would be subjected to great hardship. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, has opposed the petition and has stated that the machine in question was permitted to be purchased duty free on account of the fact that the petitioner had executed a bond accepting liability and had undertaken to pay the same and in such circumstances the petitioner is liable to pay the duty. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l while deciding the application under Section 129E of the Act, for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion as to whether insistence on pre-deposit of the custom duty would have caused undue hardship to the petitioner. It is also observed that the respondents have not filed any document nor have they controverted the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the hardship pointed out by the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the petition, filed by the petitioner, deserves to be partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.6.2007, Annexure P- 10, passed by respondent no.1 Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is accordingly set aside and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
