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 rejects department's request for deposit appropriation, emphasizes fairness and compliance.</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY Versus HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES (P) LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY Versus HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES (P) LTD. - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 869 (Tri. - Chennai), 2009 (15) S.T.R. 609 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Granting of waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery, Appropriation of deposit made in another case, Compliance with Section 35F, Displeasure at department's approach, Rejection of application.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, the issues revolved around the granting of waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in a case involving duty and penalty amounts. The Tribunal had previously granted the waiver and stay after noting that a deposit of Rs. 2 crores made by the party in another case was with the department, and the appellants agreed to retain the deposit until the final disposal of the present appeal. The department later contended that the deposit made in another case could not be appropriated towards the deposit in the current case under Section 35F. The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the department's approach, emphasizing that they had directed the department to retain the amount with them until the final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that if the department was not agreeable, they should refund the amount to the party so that it could be deposited under Section 35F for the current case. The Tribunal rejected the department's application, deeming it lacking in good faith.The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of fairness and compliance with the law. They emphasized the importance of complying with Section 35F regarding deposits and stayed firm on their previous directive to retain the deposit until the final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal's rejection of the department's application underscored their commitment to upholding the integrity of the process and ensuring that parties acted in good faith. The judgment serves as a reminder of the Tribunal's authority to make decisions in the interest of justice and fairness, particularly in matters concerning financial deposits and stay orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
