9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Direction to deposit a specific amount as a condition of hearing the appeal. 2. Modification application filed by the appellants seeking a change in the deposit amount. 3. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and circulars. 4. Admissibility of reimbursable expenses in the case. 5. Decision on the modification application and extension of the deposit period. Analysis: 1. The judgment initially directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs out of a total duty amount of Rs. 2.06 crores and a penalty of Rs. 4.13 crores as a condition for hearing their appeal. This decision was based on the appellant's financial position and the lack of a prima facie case for unconditional stay. 2. Subsequently, the appellants filed a Modification application seeking a change in the deposit amount. However, the Tribunal observed that no new grounds were presented for modification, and as Rs. 15,30,000 had already been paid, the period to deposit the balance amount was extended by eight weeks. 3. During the hearing, the appellant's Advocate referred to a Tribunal decision and a Board circular to support their argument for modifying the deposit amount. The Revenue's representative argued against entertaining the modification application, highlighting the inapplicability of the circular to the appellant's case. 4. The Revenue contended that the reimbursable expenses claimed by the appellants were not admissible, contrasting it with the precedent of Reliance Industries where transport allowance was considered reimbursable. The Revenue sought dismissal of the modification application due to non-compliance with the earlier order. 5. After considering the arguments and reviewing the modification application, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to modify the earlier orders. The application was dismissed, but the deposit period was extended by four weeks, given the appellants had already deposited Rs. 30.30 lakhs. The matter was scheduled for compliance review on 6-1-2009.
|
