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>Stay Order Deemed Served Under Customs Act: Burden of Proof on Sending Authority</h1> <h3>ETK. SOFTECH (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN</h3> ETK. SOFTECH (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 383 (Tri. - Chennai) Appellate directions required a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 129E of the Customs Act; the stay order was sent by registered post but returned by the postman with the remark 'no such company.' The Bench considered whether the stay order could be treated as served under Section 153 of the Customs Act and relied on the Delhi High Court ruling in Neha Cosmetics, which held that provisions analogous to Section 37C of the Central Excise Act place the 'initial burden of proof of tender or delivery' on the sending authority (sub-section (2) of Section 37C read with Section 27, General Clauses Act). Applying that ratio to Section 153, the Tribunal concluded the sender had discharged its initial burden and that the stay order 'will be deemed to have been served' on the appellants. Because the appellants failed to comply with the pre-deposit direction under Section 129E, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
