TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant - 8549 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. Shri S.N. Thakkar, for the Petitioner. Shri Harin P. Raval, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)].- This petition challenges orders dated 17-12-2007 (Annexure-C) and 6-5-2008 (Annexure-F) whereunder the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Abmedabad (CESTAT) directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores out of total demand of Rs. 4.02 crores within the period specified. 2. The petitioner is principally aggrieved by the second order dated 6-5-2008 and the learned Advocate for the petitioner has concentrated and made submissions only in regard to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the said Notification, in the interest of justice and find that the same stands discussed by the adjudicating authority and the benefit stands denied for the reasons mentioned therein. The detailed submission on the said issue can be advanced by the appellant at the time of final disposal of the appeals. The Commissioner has already held that the benefit of the Notification is not available to the appellant. We do not find any justifiable reason to modify the said order at this stage. We also note that the appellants have not deposited the admitted duty liability of Rs. 90 lakhs. We have already considered the financial position, which in any case is not disputed by the appellants at this stage. Accordingly, we dismiss the modification a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Admittedly, as noted by CESTAT, the benefit of the said Notification was not pressed into service by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the stay petition and no arguments were advanced at that stage. In fact the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal had partially accepted the demand to the tune of Rs. 90 lacs as noted by the Tribunal in its first order dated 17-12-2007, but as noted by the Tribunal 'in the impugned order dated 6-5-2008 even the admitted duty liability of Rs. 90 lacs had not been paid by the petitioner till the point of time the modification application was heard by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Undue hardship is caused when the hardship is not warranted by the circumstances. 13. For a hardship to be "undue" it must be shown that the particular burden to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it. 14. The word "undue" adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant." 6. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the case it becomes apparent that the impugned order is not one which would result in grave irreparable injury or shake a citizen's faith in the impartiality of the proceedings before the Tribunal merely becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
