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 Barijoriwala's Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, M/s. Paramount Security and Other Versus The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur -I, Jaipur and Other

2016 (7) TMI 125 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre-deposit - validity of order directing 50% amount to be deposited - As per the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 the pre-deposit is kept limited to 7.5% of the demand to maintain an appeal - scope of section 35F - Held that:- Taking into consideration the legislative intent in making amendment in the year 2014, we find that due to the condition of predeposit and discretion given to the Commissioner/ CESTAT to grant exemption, the hearing of the appeals has been delayed. To overcome .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Thus, taking into consideration the facts available on record, we are of the opinion that on deposit of 15% of the amount of duty or the penalty, as the case may be, appeals would be heard by the Commissioner/ CESTAT. The amount of 15% of the duty or the penalty, as the case may be, would be deposited within a period of one month from today. - Decided partly in favor of appellant. - DB Excise Appeal No.2, 26/2014, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3430, 3431, 3546, 7555, 11006, 18805/2015, D.B. Civil .....

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 Respondent : Mr RD Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General with Mrs Manjeet Kaur and Mr Ashish Kumar, Mr Ajay Shukla with Mr Amit Surolia Mr Sarvesh Jain, For The Excise Department : Mr Anil Mehta with Mr Siddhartha Bapna BY THE COURT: By the writ petitions, a challenge has been made to second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The connected appeals challenge the order passed by the Commissioner or the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2. Aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f appeal though, in few cases, it is on lower side. As per the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 the pre-deposit is kept limited to 7.5% of the demand to maintain an appeal. 3. We have accordingly considered the alternative prayer. The condition of pre-deposit to maintain an appeal was existing prior to amendment also, however, with a provision to seek exemption by maintaining an application by the assessee. The Commissioner/ CESTAT, while accepting the application/s in part, directed the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amp; anr versus Union of India & ors on 2.3.2016 in DB Civil Misc Writ Petition No.2432/2016, Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited versus Union of India & ors , DB Central Excise Appeal No.1/2015, vide order dated 8.4.2015 and M/s Prosafe International Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & ors , DB Civil Misc Writ Petition No.10740/2014, vide order dated 30.10.2014. 5. Mr RD Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the 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

er/ CESTAT have granted exemption of predeposit to the extent it was found reasonable. In view of above, this court may not interfere in those orders, rather, it may be made clear that hearing of the appeal would be on pre-deposit of the amount directed by the Commissioner/ CESTAT. 7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 8. So far as challenge to second proviso to section 35F of the Act of 1944 is concerned, it is not pressed. It is in the light of the fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

condition of pre-deposit to some extent. In few cases, it has been directed to deposit upto 25% of the amount of duty and, in some other cases, to the extent of 50% of the demand. 10. Taking into consideration the legislative intent in making amendment in the year 2014, we find that due to the condition of predeposit and discretion given to the Commissioner/ CESTAT to grant exemption, the hearing of the appeals has been delayed. To overcome with that difficulty, amendment was brought through 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

 

 

 

 

 

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