2014 (2) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .11.2013, the application for modification of stay order was dismissed for non-prosecution and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. 3. The learned counsel submits that by Stay Order 5.8.2013, the applicant was directed to report compliance on 14.10.2013 and there was no Division Bench on that day. The matter was taken up on 5.11.2013 without any intimation to the appellant and the order was passed exparte. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we recall the Final Order dated 5.11.2013 and restore the appeal along with the miscellaneous application to its original number. We take up the application for modification of the stay order. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty was demanded on the basis of the opinion given by the Deputy Director (Cost), who is also an authority on this issue. In view of that, the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of tax. The limitation aspect would be looked into after going into the facts in details at the time of appeal hearing. We direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.10 lakhs within eight weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of the balance amount of tax along with interest and penalty would be waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. To report compliance on 14th October, 2013. 5. The learned counsel submits that while passing the stay order, the Tribunal has n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he case and it has recorded that the applicant had not furnished the documents to the adjudicating authority as assured by them. It is clear from the stay order that the time-bar issue is a factual aspect based on evidence and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case on the limitation during the stay stage. On reading the findings in the stay order, it is very clear that the applicant withdrew their application seeking provisional assessment. The submission of the learned counsel that there was no provisional assessment, is prima facie, contrary to the finding of the adjudicating authority. Therefore the Tribunal observed that this aspect would be considered after hearing the matter at length and examining the evidences in det .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X