Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (10) TMI 283

al 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 noticed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had given ample opportunities to the Appellants for complying with their prior orders. The Appeal had been dismissed in March 2007 but the Appellants chose to file the Application for restoration of Appeal only in April 2013 i.e. over six years later and the Appellants have not been able to justify the delay in preferring the restoration application. It is not open for the Appellants t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

pon to show cause as to why the NCCD should not be recovered and penalty imposed upon them as well as penalty imposed upon the General Manager of the Appellants under the provisions of the Finance Act. It appears that the Appellants did not receive notice of the hearing fixed pursuant to the show cause notice as the factory had been closed in 2004. The Additional Commissioner, Central Customs, Vapi by Order-in-Original dated 21st July 2005 confirmed the demands of NCCD and imposed penalty upon Appellant as well as General Manager of the Appellant under 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) .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

The Restoration Application was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant had not made a case for restoration of the Appeal. The Appellants have challenged the impugned order in the present appeal. 3. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal 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 sinc .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

me up for disposal on 12th January 2007. We also notice that winding up order of Hon'ble High Court was recalled by their Lordships only in May 2014. Nothing prevented the Appellant from appearing before the Tribunal when the matter was listed for stay and subsequently for compliance on 14th March 2007 and bring to notice of the Bench the factual matrix. 7. The Appellate Tribunal has held that the Appellants had not bothered to comply with the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the Appellants were only interested in prolonging the proceedings as also noticed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had given ample opportunities to the Appellants for complying with their prior orders. The Appeal had been .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||