- (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by an order of CESTAT dated 17th November, 2014 which requires him to deposit of Rs. 50 lacs being the differential amount as a precondition for the hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel contends that the appellant has a prima facie case. It is stated that the material now placed on record clearly shows that balance of convenience lies in granting the interim order during the pendency of the appeal absence of which would result in deprivation of the right to appeal itself. Learned counsel points out that the appellant is facing acute financial hardship and its proprietor has very meagre sources.
(2.) Learned counsel for revenue opposes the contentions and urges that the adjudicating authority has examined the entire gamut of material after issuing notice by the CESTAT on an earlier occasion. He submitted that unless some security is furnished the Court should not grant the interim order.
(3.) In our considered view, the materials on record, the statements of the parties, the affidavit placed on record together with copies of the ITR, balance sheets and the statement of affairs clearly indicate that the appellant is in acute financial crisis and would not be able to pay any amount. In these peculiar circumstances, the requirement of depositing any pre-deposit amount is hereby set aside; CESTAT shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.;