Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Tops Security Ltd. and others Versus Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana and another

2015 (6) TMI 14 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Restoration of appeal - Dismissal of the applications of the appellants for extension of time to deposit the amounts as a condition precedent to the maintainability of the appeal - Held that:- There was a delay of only 7 days in complying with the orders requiring the appellants to deposit the amounts. The application for extension of time filed on 22.04.2013 and the application for restoration were, however, dismissed by the order of the Tribunal dated 26.09.2013 impugned in this appeal. - It w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

estore appeals dismissed on account of the failure to comply with the orders of pre-deposit. - Appeal restored. - STA No. 7 of 2015 (O & M) and C.M. No. 10874-CII of 2015 - Dated:- 26-5-2015 - MR. S.J. VAZIFDAR AND MR. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, JJ. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent JUDGEMENT S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral) C.M. No. 10874-CII of 2015 Application for placing on record Annexure A-13 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Learned Tribunal was justified in law? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 4 days to deposit the amount of pre-deposit owing the financial hardship faced by Appellant was justified in law and condonable? The appellants had filed an appeal before the CESTAT against an order of the Commissioner raising a demand of about ₹ 58 lacs. The merits of the demand are not relevant for the purpose of this judgment. By an order dated 25.09.2012, the appellant no. 1 wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.04.2013. On 22.04.2013, the appellant filed an application for a further extension. The appellants had failed to deposit the aforesaid amounts. On 22.04.2013, the appeal itself was dismissed for noncompliance of the aforesaid orders requiring the appellants to deposit the said amounts. At that stage, the last application for extension filed on 22.04.2013 had not been decided. As we mentioned earlier, the last date for depositing the amounts was 20.04.2013. On 27.04.2013, the appellants deposite .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s an extension of a mere 7 days. It would be grossly inequitable and unfair to deny the appellants an opportunity of having their case heard on merits on account of their having delayed in complying with the order by just 7 days. The application for extension dated 22.04.2013 was pending when the appeal was dismissed on 23.04.2013 for non-compliance with the said orders. They could not have deposited the amounts on that date without a formal order. Had the order been passed on the date of the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version