TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument canvassed. Then, possibly we would not have been required to admit this Appeal. The Tribunal's order does not indicate that what the arguments were or they are only restricted to this point. Thus, the Tribunal was required to see whether any prima facie case has been made out and to what extent. That would include the issue as to whether the demand raised was within the limitation in its ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellants to predeposit ₹ 47 ,81,669 /- without even considering the prima facie merits of the case and passing a nonspeaking order? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in overlooking the earlier order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the stay application, we find that in this case the demand is for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and the show cause notice has been issued on 17th July, 2013. We find that some demands pertains to the period within limitation which works out to ₹ 47 ,81,669 /-. Therefore, we direct the applicant to make a predeposit of ₹ 47 ,81,669 /- within a period of 12 weeks from tod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue as to whether the demand raised was within the limitation in its entirety or in part. We do not find any consideration also on the point of financial hardship and how to balance the equities, if such was the situation. In the circumstances, this unreasoned and cryptic order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. We allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
