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>High Court Overturns Tribunal Orders for Non-Compliance with Deposit Order</h1> <h3>Choksi Silk Mills and others Versus Union of India and others</h3> The High Court set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order by the ... Pre-deposit - principles of natural justice - several opportunities were granted to the petitioners to comply with the pre-deposit order - Held that: - we direct that the petitioners shall deposit a total amount of ₹ 44 lacs including the amount of ₹ 12,78,000/- lacs already deposited by the petitioners earlier. Issues involved:Challenge to orders of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, non-compliance with pre-deposit order, extension of time for deposit, financial difficulties affecting compliance, granting additional time for deposit.Analysis:1. Challenge to Tribunal Orders:The petitioners challenged the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, regarding the demand of Cenvat credit and penalties imposed. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to make a pre-deposit, which the petitioners failed to comply with, leading to dismissal of the appeals. The High Court intervened, directing the petitioners to make the deposit within a specified time frame to prevent dismissal of the appeals.2. Non-Compliance and Extension of Time:Despite multiple extensions granted by the Tribunal and the High Court, the petitioners failed to comply with the pre-deposit order due to financial difficulties. The petitioners sought further time for depositing the balance amount, leading to a request for extension before the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-compliance, which was challenged by the petitioners in the present petition.3. Financial Difficulties and Additional Deposit:The petitioners cited financial difficulties as the reason for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. They expressed willingness to deposit additional amounts towards the disputed liability to rectify the delay. The Court considered the financial constraints of the petitioners and directed them to deposit an additional sum as a compromise to ensure compliance.4. Granting Additional Time for Deposit:Considering the financial constraints and the additional liability imposed on the petitioners, the Court granted an extension for depositing the remaining amount in four equal monthly installments. The Court directed the petitioners to file a revised undertaking and specified deadlines for the installment payments to ensure compliance and restoration of the appeals.5. Judgment and Costs:The High Court set aside the previous Tribunal orders and substituted them with directions for deposit and compliance. If the petitioners fail to comply with the specified directions, the Tribunal orders shall stand restored. The petitioners were directed to pay the respondents' costs within a specified time frame as part of the judgment.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to the Tribunal orders, non-compliance issues, financial difficulties affecting compliance, and the granting of additional time for deposit to facilitate the resolution of the dispute. The detailed analysis provided insights into the legal proceedings and the Court's considerations in balancing the interests of justice with the petitioners' financial constraints.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
