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 modification request for financial hardship, grants extension. Appeals restored with conditions. Compliance directions issued.</h1> <h3>SHRISHTI IMPEX PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I</h3> SHRISHTI IMPEX PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 577 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Modification of Stay Order due to financial hardship.2. Restoration of appeals for Directors/Ex-Directors of M/s. SIPL.3. Restoration of appeals for other applicants.Summary:1. Modification of Stay Order due to financial hardship:The Tribunal had directed M/s. SIPL to deposit Rs. 15 Crores towards payment of duty within 8 weeks, failing which the appeals would be dismissed. M/s. SIPL sought modification of this order citing financial hardship, arguing that their assets were taken over by M/s. ARCIL u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the Tribunal found that the lease agreement presented by M/s. SIPL was deemed a 'got up document' by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the property in question belonged to M/s. Sonu Synthetics Ltd., not M/s. SIPL. The Tribunal rejected the modification request, emphasizing that no new financial evidence was presented and citing the Supreme Court's stance on 'undue hardship' in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner. The Tribunal granted M/s. SIPL an additional 8 weeks to comply with the pre-deposit order.2. Restoration of appeals for Directors/Ex-Directors of M/s. SIPL:The appeals of the Directors/Ex-Directors were dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition by M/s. SIPL. The Tribunal restored their appeals, contingent on M/s. SIPL making the required pre-deposit within the extended 8-week period. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of their appeals without further notice.3. Restoration of appeals for other applicants:The appeals of other applicants were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order requiring a 25% pre-deposit of penalties. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for their failure to comply and noted the lack of any plea of financial hardship. Consequently, the applications for restoration of their appeals were rejected.Conclusion:The Tribunal disposed of all applications in the above terms, with specific directions for compliance and restoration of appeals where applicable. The judgment was pronounced in the Open Court on 6-8-2009.
TaxTMI 