TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the application for pre-deposit afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Decided in favour of assessee. - STA No. 7 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 12-8-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Fateh Deep Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate and Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the order dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 01.03.2006? (vii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was bound to pass an Order on merits on the Stay Application under Section 35F even the Appellant did not appear in person? (viii) Whether directions for unjust Pre-deposit causes undue hardship to the Appellant and is contrary to provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, especially when appellant is suffering from financial crunch? 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant is engaged in construction business and had undertaken the work for construction of 421 flats for Puncham Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Sector 68, SAS Nagar and also with regard to another construction in Mohali fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent before the Tribunal till 3.30 PM. However, the case did not reach and the counsel had left for some urgent personal difficulty. The Tribunal thereafter called the case at 4.00 PM and dismissed the stay application in default directing the appellant to remit the adjudicated liability within four weeks. According to the learned counsel, the exparte order was not received by the appellant in time as it had left their Sector-34, Chandigarh office. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P-7) dismissed the appeal for failure of predeposit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders passed by the Tribunal. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
