New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 276 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 276 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Waiver of pre deposit - Applicable precedent - Held that:- Admittedly, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd (2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) is against the applicant and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not granted any stay and the said decision is in "force and binding on this Bench. Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sushil Agarwal (2012 (12) TMI 49 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) made the observatio .....

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 the Appellant : Shri S Suriyanarayanan (Learned Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri L Tendupatra (Authorised Representative) ORDER Per: P K Das: By stay order No M/15836/2014 dtd 9.12.2014 the applicant was directed to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 9.2.2015. The applicant filed this Application for Modification or Stay Order to waive pre-deposit entirely. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Paper Mills Ltd - 2004 (164) ELT.375(SC) which was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Sushil Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai I 2012(283)ELT 377 (Tri. Mumbai). 3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal in the identical issue, consistently directed to pre-deposit partly, following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd (supra). He further submits that in view of the decisions of jurisdiction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0/- alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount. The Tribunal directed the applicant to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- after considering, prima facie the demand is barred by limitation. 5. The Learned Counsel submits that the appeal against the decision of Cadila Healthcare Ltd (supra) was admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is improper and premature to rely on such a decision. We are unable to accept the submission of the applicant. In our view, the law declared by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re the Railways Rates Tribunal. By judgement dated 18.4.1966 the Tribunal declared the levy unreasonable. Railway filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the Hon'ble Court passed a limited interim order with certain direction to the respondent. On 14.10.1970, SLP was dismissed. The respondent filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate relief for recovery of amount. By judgement dated 29.10.1973, the Hon'ble Court dismissed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nch of Supreme Court, where it has been held that having regard to the doctrine of merger as also the principle that an appeal is continuation of suit and a cause of action, suit for recovery of money, arose only when the right was finally determined by the Supreme Court. In the context of whether the suits filed by the respondent are barred by limitation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once an appeal is filed before the Supreme Court and the same is entertained, order of the High C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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