Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Anr.

2016 (6) TMI 472 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Constitutional validity of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Minimum requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% to file an appeal - Held that:- the Petitioner cannot afford the pre-deposit that might be ordered by the CESTAT, the Court finds the plea to be premature since there has been no occasion for the CESTAT to yet pass any order of pre-deposit. As already noticed, the CESTAT declined to hear the Petitionerís appeal only because the Petitioner has instituted parallel proceedings in this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring with the show cause notices which led to passing of the above adjudication order also does not arise.

The question whether the amended Section 35 F of the CE Act will apply to the Petitioner's appeal will be decided by the CESTAT in accordance with law. It will be open to the Petitioner, if it files the restoration application in the CESTAT not later than ten days from today along with an application for condonation of delay, to urge that the Petitioner was bonafide pursuing 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

private limited company engaged in the business of construction of road and horticulture activities. The Petitioner has in this writ petition challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 21st April 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax confirming the demand of service tax. 2. Against the impugned order dated 21st April 2014, the appeal lies to the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35 F of the Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me of the present petition. That prayer was declined by the CESTAT by order dated 21st August 2015 holding that since the Petitioner has already approached this Court, the appeal was not maintainable since the Petitioner cannot avail two parallel remedies against the impugned order simultaneously. 4. The central plea of the Petitioner is that the mandatory minimum pre- deposit of 7.5% of the demand in terms of the amendment in Section 35-F of CE Act in affordable for the Petitioner. The specific .....

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 petitioner after considering the law and all the documents, including balance sheets submitted by the petitioner . 5. As far as prayer (a) is concerned, this Court has in its order dated 20th October 2015 in CUSAA No. 19 of 2015 (Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs) and order dated 25th April 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 3380 of 2016 (Suvidha Signs Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) concurred with the view expressed by the High Court of Allahabad in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of Indi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version