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

2015 (10) TMI 2534 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 2534 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 348 (Tri. - Del.) - Restoration of appeal - dismissed for non-prosecution - imposition of penalty - Department argued that the Order-in-Revision is only with regard to imposition of penalty, which was not a subject matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the impugned Order-in-Revision is sustainable - Held that:- it is pertinent to note that imposition of penalty is related to the sustainability of the demand and therefore i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty was very much a subject matter of the appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals). As it is evident that the Order-in-Revision passed by the Commissioner was in violation of Section 84 ibid and therefore cannot be held to be sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Revision. - Decided in favour of appellant - ST/565/2009-CU(DB) - Final Order No. ST/A/53354/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri R.K. Singh , Member (T) Shri R. Krishnan Advocate 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

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. In the ROA application the appellant has pleaded that it had sent a request on 12-1-2015 to the CESTAT Registry stating that due to some personal difficulty, it would not be able to attend the hearing on 20-1-2015 at Chandigarh and that its (i.e., the appellant s) said request was not linked up with the appeal file when the appeal was taken up for hearing, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. In view of the ground mentioned and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 1994 on 24-4-2009, the date on which the appellant s appeal against the primary adjudication order was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen that the appellant had earlier filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same as the appellant did not comply with the stay order ordering pre-deposit. The appellant preferred an appeal before CESTAT, which was decided on 2-3-2009 (Final Order No. ST/112/2009, dated 2-3-2009) [2009 (15) S.T. .....

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