Back
1994 Supreme(Kar) 305
Karnataka High Court
M.I.METAL SECTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - Respondent
Decided On : 10-28-94
W.A. : 2198 of 1994
ASHOK HARANAHAFLI, G.CHANDRAKUMAR, RAJESH CHANDRA KUMAR
Tribunal's discretion to impose pre-deposit condition and consideration of financial hardship
Headnote:
discretion - pre-deposit condition - The court upheld the tribunal's decision to require the appellant to pre-deposit a certain amount as a condition precedent to the hearing of its appeal, but also emphasized that the tribunal should not dismiss the appeal mechanically for non-compliance and should consider financial hardship if raised at a later stage.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order requiring pre-deposit as a condition for hearing its appeal, which was dismissed by the single judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, but emphasized that the tribunal should consider financial hardship if raised at a later stage.
Issues: Challenge to pre-deposit order, consideration of financial hardship, dismissal of appeal
Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal's discretion to impose pre-deposit condition upheld, but tribunal should consider financial hardship if raised at a later stage
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with the observation that the tribunal should consider financial hardship if raised at a later stage.
( 2 ) WHAT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of subsequent decision of the tribunal and because the tribunal has not properly considered the aspect of financial hardship to the appellant, this court should interfere with the said order. If as a result of subsequent decision of the tribunal any change in the correct legal position has been brought about, then the appellant can move the tribunal for modification of the impugned order passed by the tribunal. So far as the aspect of financial hardship is concerned in our opinion it cannot be said that the tribunal has not properly applied its mind to that aspect. Merely because there is no elaborate discussion and detailed reasons are not given, it cannot be said that the order passed by the tribunal is not legal and proper. This appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.
( 3 ) WE would however like to observe that it will not be proper for the tribunal to dismiss the appellant's appeal mechanically merely because the appellant has failed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit imposed by it. When the appeal would be listed again for hearing, it would be open to the appellant to move the tribunal even at that stage, to raise a plea that it could not comply with the order passed by the tribunal because of financial difficulties and circumstances beyond its control. If such a plea is raised, then the tribunal "shall have to consider it on its own merits. If the tribunal accepts the plea, then the appeal will have to be heard on merits. But if no such plea is raised or it is not accepted by the tribunal then it will be open to the tribunal to pass the consequential order of dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the condition imposed upon it.
( 4 ) WITH the aforesaid observations this appeal is dismissed.
--- *** ---
.
