Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Electronics Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 17, 1989
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/5317

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Electronics Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(1990)(28)LC416Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. this is an application for modification of stay order no. 113/89-a dated 28th june, 1989.2. it is submitted that rs. 2,41,77,994/- which was referred to by this tribunal as net profit is not actually a net profit but is net accumulated loss. the bank balance of rs. 30, 10,431/- is not enough to meet their requirement of a months working capital as they have to pay over rs. 50 lakhs central excise duty and rs. 8 lakhs sales tax, and rs. 6 lakhs wage bill. he also submitted that the accumulated loss is as on 31st march, 1989 is rs. 352 crores. the company is a sick company and is under nursing programme of the banks since 1984. the unit is being funded at subsidised rates of interest under specific instructions of reserve bank of india for rehabilitation, by the union bank of india, new delhi and canara bank of india, faridabad.therefore, it is submitted, if the appellants are directed to deposit rs. 4 lakhs it would result in irreparable loss and hardship to them, and prayed for dispensing with pre-deposit unconditionally.3. the sdr opposed the modification application, and brought to our notice that cash and bank balances to the tune of rs. 30,10,431/- are available.4. the financial hardship pleaded by the appellants is not that grave as to prevent them from depositing the minimum of rs. 1 lakh in view of availability of cash and bank balances to the tune of rs. 30 lakhs. the amount due is a past liability which requires priority treatment.therefore, we dispense with pre-deposit of the duty demanded subject to the condition of the appellants depositing rs. 1 lakh within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order recovery proceedings are also stayed. the stay order no. 113/89-a dated 28th june, 1989 is accordingly modified.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application for modification of stay order No. 113/89-A dated 28th June, 1989.

2. It is submitted that Rs. 2,41,77,994/- which was referred to by this Tribunal as net profit is not actually a net profit but is net accumulated loss. The bank balance of Rs. 30, 10,431/- is not enough to meet their requirement of a months working capital as they have to pay over Rs. 50 lakhs central excise duty and Rs. 8 lakhs sales tax, and Rs. 6 lakhs wage bill. He also submitted that the accumulated loss is as on 31st March, 1989 is Rs. 352 crores. The company is a sick company and is under nursing programme of the banks since 1984. The unit is being funded at subsidised rates of interest under specific instructions of Reserve Bank of India for rehabilitation, by the Union Bank of India, New Delhi and Canara Bank of India, Faridabad.

Therefore, it is submitted, if the appellants are directed to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs it would result in irreparable loss and hardship to them, and prayed for dispensing with pre-deposit unconditionally.

3. The SDR opposed the modification application, and brought to our notice that cash and bank balances to the tune of Rs. 30,10,431/- are available.

4. The financial hardship pleaded by the appellants is not that grave as to prevent them from depositing the minimum of Rs. 1 lakh in view of availability of cash and bank balances to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs. The amount due is a past liability which requires priority treatment.

Therefore, we dispense with pre-deposit of the duty demanded subject to the condition of the appellants depositing Rs. 1 lakh within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order Recovery proceedings are also stayed. The stay order No. 113/89-A dated 28th June, 1989 is accordingly modified.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial