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 →

M/s. Super Cabinets Versus CCE, Delhi-II

2015 (12) TMI 797 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 ₹ 2.5 lakhs was deposited during the peri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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, Member (Technical) And Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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

ith 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 application was rejected on 17.1.2011. Thereafter, 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

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 the case of Scan Computer Consultancy Vs. Union .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 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 dismissed, but after dismissal of the appeal for non- .....

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