TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies stay application, citing prematurity, emphasizes procedural steps and legal remedies</h1> <h3>LOTUS CHOCOLATE CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> The Tribunal denied the application for a stay of the remand order, stating that it was premature as the High Court had not decided on the reference ... Reference to High Court - Stay during pendency Issues:1. Stay of operation of remand order pending final disposal of reference application by High Court.Analysis:The case involved an application by the respondents in Appeal No. C/1465/1998 seeking a stay of the remand order passed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai pending the final disposal of their reference application by the High Court. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the case to the original authority for de novo adjudication, rejecting the DGFT's clarification as devoid of legal effect. The respondents approached the High Court with questions of law under Section 130A of the Customs Act related to the remand order.The applicants argued for the stay by citing a similar case where a stay was granted by the West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal and referenced a Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bansi Dhar & Sons. The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspects and noted that the High Court cannot entertain an application for stay of recovery of tax during the pendency of a reference application. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner had not yet pursued the remand order, and the High Court was yet to decide on the reference application, making the current stay application premature.The Tribunal concluded that the present application for a stay was premature as the High Court had not framed any questions of law in the reference application. The Tribunal highlighted the available remedies for the party, including pursuing the case before the High Court for framing questions of law and approaching the Tribunal with a proper application if necessary. The Tribunal rejected the current application for a stay, emphasizing that the situation did not warrant such relief at that stage.In summary, the Tribunal denied the application for a stay of the remand order, citing the premature nature of the request as the High Court had not yet decided on the reference application or framed any questions of law. The Tribunal highlighted the available legal remedies for the party and emphasized the need for proper procedural steps to seek relief in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
