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

2016 (4) TMI 1073 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 1073 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 400 (Bom.) - Whether the ground of financial hardship needed to be considered by the CESTAT - Effort is made out by the appellant to point out his financial hardship and the cash flow - Appellant submitted that he has been continuously overdrawing from the bankers. Also these grounds were brought to the notice of Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, these events needed appreciation by CESTAT - Held that:- While considering the issue of predeposi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

round is not available on facts, that finding is to be reached by CESTAT only. - At this stage, we are not inclined to set aside the order dated 29.7.2013 because in the meanwhile, pre-deposit as envisaged therein, has already been made. We allow the respondents to withdraw the amount deposited with the Registry of this Court along with the interest accrued thereon. In view of this, dismissal of appeal by the later order dated 28.1.2014 is unsustainable. That order is quashed and set aside a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndency of the proceedings before this Court, an amount of Rs.ten lac was already deposited with the Department while an amount of Rs. Five lac has been deposited with the Registry of this Court. In the present application, prayer is to condone delay of 365 days in filing appeal under Section 35(g) of Central Excise Act. Advocate Deshpande strongly opposes the prayer. He points out the deliberate conduct of the appellant/applicant. He submits that it shows nothing but mala fide. We find that 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

ppeal under Section 35(g) has been filed. In the appeal, there is a challenge to the order dated 29.7.2013 and also to the order dated 28.1.2014. In this situation, though we find that there are some lapses on the part of the applicant/appellant, it cannot be said that those lapses are with any oblique motive. He also deposited pre-deposit amount in the meanwhile. The applicant/appellant appears to have acted as per the legal advice. In this situation, subject to payment of costs of ₹ 1,00 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at financial hardship apart from merits of the matter were pressed into service before the first appellate authority, namely the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same were also reiterated before the CESTAT. Perusal of the application for grant of stay shows in paragraphs 11 and 23 grounds regarding financial hardship. Advocate Parchure submits that those grounds are not looked into by the said authorities. Advocate Deshpande submits that the contents in paragraphs 11 and 23 in the stay application .....

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