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 restores appeal citing financial crisis as cause for delay, emphasizes exceptional circumstances</h1> <h3>PRAKASH DISTILLERY & CHEM. CO. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., SILIGURI</h3> PRAKASH DISTILLERY & CHEM. CO. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., SILIGURI - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 246 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:- Restoration of Appeal due to non-compliance with stay order and financial crisis leading to delay in depositing the amount.Analysis:1. Restoration of Appeal: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with the stay order, which required the appellants to deposit a specified amount by a certain date. The appellant's representative explained that the delay in depositing the amount was due to a financial crisis faced by the appellant. The representative cited previous legal decisions, including one from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and another from the Tribunal, to support the request for restoration of the appeal based on the financial difficulties faced by the appellant.2. Arguments by the Parties: The appellant's advocate argued that the appellants had eventually deposited the required amount, albeit with a delay of 19 days, due to financial constraints. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that the appeal should not be restored, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case where non-compliance with the stay order led to dismissal of the appeal. The Revenue's representative highlighted that the appellants had deposited the amount only when recovery proceedings were initiated, emphasizing the importance of complying with the stay order.3. Decision and Rationale: After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in depositing the pre-deposit amount and the appellant's inability to attend a hearing due to unforeseen circumstances. The Tribunal noted the legal precedents cited by the appellant's advocate and decided to restore the appeal filed by the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application for Restoration of Appeal, recognizing the exceptional circumstances of financial crisis and the eventual compliance with the stay order, despite the delay.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, highlights the key issues of restoration of appeal, non-compliance with the stay order, financial crisis as a mitigating factor, legal arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the circumstances and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
