Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Aafloat Textiles India Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

2017 (10) TMI 283 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-deposit order - Held that: - the Appellants have not made any effort to attend the hearings before the Appellate Tribunal and / or place the recommendation of the BIFR for winding up of the Appellants Company on 15th November 2006 before the Appellate Tribunal when the stay application came up for hearing on 12th January 2007 - It appears that the Appellants were only interested in prolonging the proceedings as also notic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

heir Appeal for non-compliance - appeal dismissed decided against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 42 of 2016 - Dated:- 5-10-2017 - A. S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah, with Mr. Jas Sanghvi, i/b PDS Legal for Appellant Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per Riyaz I. Chagla J. ) 1. The Appellant by the present Appeal is challenging order dated 21st October 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad (for short Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1985. The factory of the Appellants has been closed since 2004. The Appellants were investigated on account of their not having paid National Calamity Contingent Duty ( NCCD ) leviable on Polyester Filament Yarn and summons were issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Vapi on 7th May 2004. The Appellants forward their response to the summons. By show cause notice dated 29th July 2004, Appellants were called upon to show cause as to why the NCCD should not be recov .....

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 the provisions of the Finance Act. The Appellants filed an Appeal against the said order-in-original dated 21st July 2005 along with application of the stay before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Customs, Vapi. The notices for hearing were never received and therefore, the Appellants could not attend the personal hearing. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Vapi, by an Order-in- Appeal dated 10th March 2006 dismissed the Appeal as well as the stay application fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mount of NCCD and penalties payable under the order impugned before it within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the BIFR recommended winding up of the Appellants company on 15th November 2006. An order of winding up was passed by the BIFR on 31st January 2007. The Appellants could not deposit the amount directed to be deposited by the Appellant Tribunal. By an order dated 14th March 2007, the Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed for non-compliance of the pre deposit order dated 12th January .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l has not taken into consideration the reason for the non compliance of the pre-deposit order dated 12th January 2007. Mr. Shah submitted that the order dated 12th January 2007 had been passed exparte and that the Appellants had not received notice of the hearing before the Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order dated 14th March 2007 dismissing the Appeal was again passed exparte as the Appellants had not received notice of the hearing since the factory had been closed since 2004. Mr. Shah submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8. It was accordingly submitted by Mr. Shah that in this situation, the Appellants were unable to pay pre-deposit amount as ordered. 4. Mr. Rao learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments. We are of the view that the Appellants have not made any effort to attend the hearings before the Appellate Tribunal and / or place the recommendation of the BIFR for winding up of the Appellants Company .....

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
 


|| 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.