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>Dismissal of Application for Recall of Orders and Waiver of Pre-Deposit under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>POLAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-V</h3> POLAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-V - TMI Issues Involved:1. Recall of Tribunal's Orders2. Compliance with Pre-deposit Order3. Receipt and Acknowledgment of Tribunal's Order4. Financial Hardship and B.I.F.R. Status5. Notice of Hearing and Dismissal of AppealSummary:1. Recall of Tribunal's Orders:The Applicant/Appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application to recall the Tribunal's Orders dated 17.11.2011 and 14.02.2012. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, resulting in the Commissioner confirming a duty of Rs. 37,36,702/- and imposing an equivalent penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Applicant/Appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Compliance with Pre-deposit Order:The Tribunal directed the Applicant/Appellant to deposit all dues within six weeks from the receipt of the Order dated 17.11.2011 and report compliance on 09.01.2012. The Applicant/Appellant failed to appear or request an adjournment on multiple occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal on 14.02.2012 for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Receipt and Acknowledgment of Tribunal's Order:The Applicant/Appellant claimed they received the Order dated 17.11.2011 only on 18.01.2012, arguing that the compliance period should extend to 29.02.2012. The Tribunal found no merit in this claim, noting the lack of substantiation and the Applicant/Appellant's failure to inform the Tribunal of the late receipt and seek an extension.4. Financial Hardship and B.I.F.R. Status:The Applicant/Appellant argued financial incapacity to deposit the amount due to their negative net worth and B.I.F.R. status. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the Applicant/Appellant did not take appropriate steps to communicate their financial hardship or seek an extension in a timely manner.5. Notice of Hearing and Dismissal of Appeal:The Applicant/Appellant contended they were not given notice of the hearing on 14.02.2012. The Tribunal found this claim unconvincing, noting that compliance matters were listed on 13.02.2012, and all advocates present were informed of the rescheduling to 14.02.2012. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's judgment in Bihariji Packaging Vs. Union of India, affirming that non-compliance with pre-deposit orders naturally leads to dismissal of the appeal without entering into the merits.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, finding no merit in the Applicant/Appellant's claims and emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timely communication with the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
