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 →

Bata India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Chennai-III

2015 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that:- This is an appeal filed after 6.8.2014 after the amendment of Section 35F. After the amendment of Section 35F, any appeal filed the Tribunal shall not entertain any appeal unless appellant deposits 7.5% of the duty. - Tribunal in their own case ordered predeposit in an identical issue. Therefore, appellants have not made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit as the Tribunal vide order dt. 8.1.2013 in the above case ordered for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioner : Shri Kurian Thomas, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami The present appeals are filed on 8.4.2015. The appeals were filed after amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, w.e.f. 6.8.2014 without complying predeposit. Registry issued a defect memo for non-compliance of predeposit of 7.5% as per the amended provision. The DM was listed before Single Member on 26.6.2015 for admitting the appeals, wherein the appeals were admitted with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs UOI 2015-TIOL-632-HC-KERALA-ST and the Madras High Court decision in the case of Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur Central I Assessment Circle and others Vs Cameo Exports and Others reported in 2006 (147) STC 280 (Mad.) wherein it has been held that the relevant date is the date of initiation of assessment of proceedings and not the decision itself and submits that the Hon'ble High Court held that amended provisions of the Act are not given any retro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal directed the very same appellant to deposit ₹ 20 lakhs in relation to transportation of goods from Regional Distribution Centres to Retail outlets. He further submits that in the present case, the transportation amount is ₹ 2.5 lakhs. He also submits that the total credit distributed by ISD challan wise and also there is no dispute on the manner of distribution of credit as the credit was as per rule 7. of service tax attributable under service used exclusively exchanged in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case of Arjun Industries Ltd. Vs CC Jaipur - 2015 (320) ELT 497 (Raj.) wherein the High Court said that mandatory predeposit of 7.5% or 10% as prescribed in Section 35F is applicable in cases of appeals filed prior to 6.8.2014. 4. After hearing both sides and after examining the merits of the stay applications, we find that this is an appeal filed after 6.8.2014 after the amendment of Section 35F. After the amendment of Section 35F, any appeal filed the Tribunal shall not entertain any appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/15 (V) dated 02.03.2015 in M/s. Muthoot Finance Limited ..vs.. Union of India and another = 2015-TIOL-632-HC-KERALA-ST, which reads as follows:- "4. .. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would have to deposit the amount of 7.5% of the tax confirmed against him, as a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal. I note in this connection that recently, a Division Bench of the High Court of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh has taken a prim .....

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 with the settled law that the institution of a suit carries with it an implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit and, further, that the right of appeal that is vested is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of institution of the suit or proceeding, and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of filing of the appeal. (See: Garikapati Veeraya v. N.Subbiah Choudhry an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espect, he would have an efficacious alternate remedy before the Tribunal where he can file an appeal, together with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay or recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P8 order. At the time of filing the appeal, he will not be required to make any payment as a pre-condition for the hearing of the waiver application by the Tribunal. I, therefore, relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst Ext.P8 order. I make it clear that, if the petitioner prefers a duly constituted appeal under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as they stood prior to 16.08.2014, then the Appellate Tribunal shall number the Appeal, and consider the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P8 order, on merits and thereafter, proceed to hear the appeal itself in due course. The petitioner shall file the appeal, toget .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs of assessment, but the Appeals were rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that they were not accompanied by the proof of payment of 25% of the disputed tax as per proviso 2 to Section 31 of the Act as amended by Act 19 of 2002 with effect from June 3, 2002. The assessees filed Writ Petitions challenging that order. A single Judge allowed certain Writ Petitions without insisting upon the pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax, while the writ petitions in the other batch were dismis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der of final assessment was made under Section 12(2) of the Act or the order of reassessment was made under Section 16 of the Act, and, in any case, on the date when a notice of final assessment was issued under Section 12(2) or a show cause notice for reassessment was made under Section 16 of the Act. In that background, this Court has held that for the purpose of accrual of the right of appeal, the crucial and the relevant date is the date of initiation of assessment proceedings and not the de .....

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