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>Appellate Tribunal allows appeal hearing for small taxpayer, recalls pre-deposit order</h1> <h3>DEEPAK FOREIGN MONEY EXCHANGER Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., JALLANDHAR</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, recalled the pre-deposit order for a small taxpayer facing a Service tax demand of Rs. 68,388, allowing a ... Stay application – dismissed for default – demand - appellant had sent an application on inability to attend hearing, by Speed Post – Held that: – Looking to the smallness of the demand and also appreciating that the appellant shall suffer, if its appeal is thrown at the threshold without examining its merit – order recalled - order shall not to be a precedent order for citation by either side in future - appeal dismissed Issues: Application for restoration of stay application and compliance with pre-deposit order.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appellant sought a hearing for the application that had been dismissed ex-parte, requiring pre-deposit of the demanded amount. The appellant's counsel argued that they had sent the application for restoration via Speed Post and courier, emphasizing the appellant's status as a small taxpayer facing a Service tax demand of Rs. 68,388. The appellant requested an opportunity for a hearing on the stay application and appeal. The respondent opposed the application, stating that the appellant was absent on the specified date and had no right to restoration. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the compliance date had passed without a sitting of the Bench, leading to the matter being revisited. Considering the smallness of the demand and the potential consequences for the appellant, the Tribunal decided to recall the pre-deposit order, allowing a hearing on the appeal. The Tribunal also directed a status quo ante, maintaining the appeal's status until the hearing on 13th August, 2009. The Tribunal clarified that the decision was made under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule 1962 and should not serve as a precedent for future cases. The appellant was reminded of the hearing date, with a warning that failure to appear would result in dismissal of the appeal. Ultimately, the miscellaneous application and stay application were disposed of as per the Tribunal's directions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
