TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of pre-deposit of ₹ 60 lacs. In view of conduct of the petitioner, no further indulgence would be permissible. We do not see any reason why we should interfere with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction in facts of this case. - Decided against assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 14271 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2014 - Akil Kureshi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. Shri Paresh M Dave, Advocate, for the Petitioner. ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-9-2014 as at Annexure - N to the petition. Under the said order, the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) reduced the condition of pre-deposit from ₹ 1 crore to ₹ 60 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioner thereupon filed Special Civil Application No. 590 of 2014 and prayed for indulgence. While recognizing that the Tribunal was justified in proceeding ex parte, looking to the sizeable amount required to be deposited by the petitioner by way of pre-deposit, this Court, on 6-3-2014 [2015 (315) E.L.T. 400 (Guj.)] in the said petition, passed following order : 3. We have not the slightest doubt that having filed the proceeding before the tribunal, the petitioner ought to have pursue the same with all seriousness. Repeated adjournments were neither justified nor can be found any fault with the tribunal in not adjourning the proceedings time and again. Nevertheless, in facts of the case when it is pointed out to us that at lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore closed the stage of hearing. The Tribunal passed order on 1-5-2014. After recording reasons and noting, non-appearance by or on behalf of the petitioner, the Tribunal reduced the requirement of pre-deposit to ₹ 1 crore. In such order, the Tribunal noted that even before the adjudicating authority, there was no further participation by the petitioner. Considering such aspects, the Tribunal passed following order : 8. As we have already held that the issue on merit needs deeper consideration and the issue being highly arguable, we find that the appellant should be put to some condition for hearing and disposing the appeal on merit. In the interest of justice and in the facts circumstances of the case, we direct the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner has not remained present and participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Time and again, the Tribunal was compelled to adjourn the proceeding at the request of the petitioner. Finally, when there was no participation, the Tribunal decided such application ex parte. Even after remand from this Court, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal on the ground that there was no oral submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The Tribunal while not accepting such ground, still further reduced requirement of pre-deposit of ₹ 60 lacs. In view of conduct of the petitioner, no further indulgence would be permissible. We do not see any reason why we should interfere with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
