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 stresses compliance & pre-deposit rule in appeal dismissal for non-compliance</h1> <h3>SHIVSHAKTI INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK</h3> SHIVSHAKTI INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 253 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Compliance with tribunal orders, pre-deposit requirement for appeal, segregation of matters under different statutesCompliance with Tribunal Orders:The judgment addresses the issue of compliance with tribunal orders. The Tribunal directed M/s. Shivshakti Industries to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000, which was confirmed by the appellant's representative. The compliance was noted in this regard. However, M/s. R.K. Ispat Ltd. failed to comply with the order to make the required deposit, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. Similarly, Shri Ram Avtar Aggarwal in Customs appeal case also did not make the pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal as well.Pre-deposit Requirement for Appeal:The judgment emphasizes the pre-deposit requirement as a prerequisite for hearing an appeal. Failure to comply with this requirement was deemed fatal to the appeal process. The appellants' failure to make the necessary pre-deposit rendered their appeals unsuccessful and led to the dismissal of their cases. The judgment highlights the significance of adhering to the pre-deposit condition to avail of the appeal remedy.Segregation of Matters under Different Statutes:Another issue highlighted in the judgment is the segregation of matters under different statutes. It was noted that a common order was passed for appeals under two different statutes - the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment stresses the importance of proper attention by the registry to consolidate related matters before one bench to ensure the efficient dispensation of justice. Segregation of matters under different statutes was cautioned against to prevent any oversight in the judicial process.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with tribunal orders, the pre-deposit requirement for appeals, and the need to consolidate related matters under different statutes for effective adjudication. The dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance serves as a reminder of the procedural obligations that appellants must fulfill to pursue legal remedies effectively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
