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>Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order</h1> <h3>Rakesh Construction Company Versus C.C.E, Jaipur I</h3> The appeal seeking review of a conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay was rejected due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the ... - Issues involved: Review of conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay, compliance with pre-deposit order, reconsideration of order dated 4.10.2012, failure to comply with pre-deposit order, transgression of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Issue 1 - Review of conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay:The Miscellaneous Application sought review of the conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted on 4.10.2012. The order directed pre-deposit of Rs. 5.50 lakhs within four weeks and compliance report by 4.12.2012. Waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount during the appeal's pendency or for six months, whichever is earlier, was granted. However, no proof of compliance was recorded by the Registry on 23.11.2012. Subsequent applications seeking reconsideration were dismissed due to lack of representation by the appellant.Issue 2 - Compliance with pre-deposit order:The petitioner claimed to have deposited Rs. 1,50,000 on 13.12.2012 and Rs. 1,57,003 on 23.3.2013. These deposits did not comply with the condition stipulated in the order dated 4.10.2012, for which time was extended until 12.4.2013. The failure to comply with the pre-deposit order led to the rejection of the appeal.Issue 3 - Transgression of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:Due to the failure of the pre-deposit order and transgression of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal was ultimately rejected. The petitioner's attempts to seek reconsideration were also dismissed, as previous applications had been rejected for lack of justification.This judgement highlights the importance of compliance with pre-deposit orders and the consequences of failing to adhere to such directives under the relevant legal provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
