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

2015 (12) TMI 797 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (12) TMI 797 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that:- Stay Order directing the appellant to make pre-deposit of ₹ 5,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks had been passed on 21.5.2008. But since the appellant failed to deposit the directed amount, the appeal was dismissed on 22.10.2008. However, before dismissal of appeal, out of ₹ 5 Lakhs, ₹ 2.5 lakhs had been deposited. The balance amount 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

BAD) and also the decision in the case of S.T. Texturisers Vs. Union of India (2000 (5) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the delay in compliance of the Stay Order dated 21.05.2008 is condoned and the Final Order dated 22.10.2008 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance is recalled. - Appeal restored. - Excise ROA No.54337/2014 in Appeal No.870/2008-EX(DB) - Misc. Order No.51814/2015 - Dated:- 5-5-2015 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant was ₹ 12,80,000/- along with interest and penalty of ₹ 49,099/-. Since the appellant failed to deposit the directed amount within the stipulated period, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F of the Act vide Final Order dated 22.10.2008. The appellant filed restoration application on 28.07.2010 on the ground that out of directed amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, they had deposited ₹ 2.5 lakhs during 2008 itself. The ROA applicatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e on account of severe financial crisis, that the factory of the appellant is closed since 2004, that the appellant had paid ₹ 2.5 lakhs sometime in July, 2008, but the balance amount, on account of financial hardships, was paid only during the period from October, 2011 to June, 2014, that in these circumstances, the appeal should be decided on merits and for this purpose, the same should be restored, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rwise statutorily granted and in a given case, even if no pre-deposit is made, the appeal may not be heard, but having dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of requirement of pre-deposit does not permit the appellate authority to refuse to restore the appeal upon compliance being shown, that in the case of Scan Computer Consultancy (supra), initially, the appellate authority had directed some pre-deposit and on failure to make the same within the stipulated period, the appeal had been dismisse .....

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