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 →

Nilesh Keshvlal Patel, PP Radhakrishnan, Zoharbhai A Mallampattiwala, Hanzel Altafhussain Malik, Sanjay Mishra, Justin Martin, Kishor Maheshwari, V.R. Sawant General Manager, Kalpesh Shah, Rakesh Bachhawat, Vipul A Mehta, Bhupender G Patel, Pankaj Aggarwal, Aashish Gupta, Shrenikbhai Morakhia, Chanramowli Srinivasan, Keemraj Kanraj Chopra, Ranjit Singh Chauhan, Ashok J Shah, Riteshbhai J Patel, Thakorbhai Gandhi, Shakti Enterprises, Vadilal Chemicals Ltd, Virendra Ramchandra Gandhi, Rohit C Joshi, Neeraj Kumar Singh, Indrajit Ghose, Ratnakar Sonawane & Mitesh V Nakhva Versus C.C.,C.C.E & S. T-Kandla, Ahmedabad, Silvasa, Daman, Vapi, Ahmedabad-I, Ahmedabad-iii, Ahmedabad-ii, Vadodara-I, Vadodara-ii & Rajkot

2015 (12) TMI 409 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that:- present appeals filed by the appellants, in their individual capacity, and they have to submit proof of mandatory deposit separately. So we do not find any force in the submission of Learned Advocate to the extent the deposit made by the main appellant is sufficient to entertain the appeal of the present appellant. - Decided against assessee. - C/11120/2015 - Interim Order No. A/11717-11748/2015 - Dated:- 19-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Memb .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pplication No.- E/EH/10606-10609/2015, E/COD/10619/2015, E/S/10824/2015 For the Petitioner : Shri P.M. Dave, Shri Jigar Shah (Advocate), Shri H. Modh (Advocate), Shri J. Suri (Advocate), Shri J.D. Shah (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri T.K. Sikdar (Authorised Representative) ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Das All these appeals are listed in the days list as For Mention . In these appeals, Registry of the Tribunal issued Defect Notices to the appellants. For the proper appreciation of the case, the rele .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

you are hereby directed to remove the above mentioned defect/(s) on or before 18/05/2015. 2. The issue involved is serial No. (ii) of Defect Notice. Shri P.M. Dave, the Learned Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants and argued the matter at length. It is submitted that in these appeals, the main appellants, namely:- Company, employers, etc deposited the amount of mandatory deposit on behalf of the present appellants as required under Section 35 F as amended of the Central Excise Act 1944, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the decisions of the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the amended Section 35 F had mentioned that the deposit should be made by the appellant. There is no indication that the deposit should be made by the appellant himself. In other words, the registry of Tribunal has to verify, whether the mandatory deposit as required under the said Section was complied or not. It is not necessary to look into who has deposited. Thus, the deposits made by the main appellants on behalf of the present appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reflect the name of the appellant. It is also submitted that in these appeals, the appellants filed the appeals in their individual capacity and therefore, the deposit made by the main appellants has no relation for the present appellants. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, the relevant portion of Section 35F of the Act 1944 as amended on 06/08/2014 is reproduced below:- SECTION 35F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal.- The .....

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 decision or order referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half percent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against; (iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited ten percent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and .....

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