Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Mayank Metals, M/s Vasudev Udyog, M/s Shivam Metals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

2015 (7) TMI 959 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre deposit - Undue hardship - Held that:- For waiver of the pre-deposit, the appellant is required to show undue hardship that would be caused, in the event, they are required to deposit the amount. In the instant case, we find that no agr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed - appeals directing the appellant to deposit 30% of the duty within four weeks - If the amount is deposited, the Tribunal will ensure and decide the appeal within one year. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g with Sri Sandeep Singh and Sri Tarun Chawla for the appellant and Sri Pradeep Chandra holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the Department. Based on a search operation conducted at four premises a show cause notice 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

r referred to as the "Act".). The appellant also filed an application under Section 35-F of the Act for waiver of the deposit. This application was disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit 50% of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is that proper opportunity was not given by the Commissioner before passing the order in original. It was contended that an interim reply was given with a request that the appellant may be permitted to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aring the appellant the order in original was passed on 30.5.2015. It was contended that if the appellant was allowed to cross examine the remaining witnesses, the net result would have been otherwise and the demand so imposed would have been waived. .....

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 considered and allowed in part on 7.3.2014 wherein five of the persons were permitted to be cross examined, namely, Mohd. Irfan, Anil Kumar, Balram Srivastava, Yogesh Chandra Shukla and Gopal. In this regard we find from the order sheet that notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

letters in April, 2015 requesting the authority to allow them to cross-examine the remaining witnesses in which no order was passed and eventually the impugned order in original was passed. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version