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 grants appeal delay, waives pre-deposit, remands for merit decision</h1> <h3>M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd., Versus CCE Vapi</h3> The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, dispensed with the pre-deposit condition, and remanded the matter for a decision on ... Applications for condonation - delay of around 350 days - They submitted that as the pre-deposits could not be made within the stipulated period on account of lack of immediate cash flow, the subsequent deposits may be treated as compliance and order of dismissal may be withdrawn. It is seen that on receipt of above application, Commissioner(Appeals) granted the applicant a personal hearing on 8.12.09 - The said letter dt.17.12.09 shows official receipt of the same by the stamp of office of Commissioner (Appeals). As such, the appellant s plea that hearing was indeed held on 8.12.09, cannot be dismissed. If that be so, we may observe here that Commissioner(Appeals) himself has been a party to the appellant s plea that the said order of dismissal can be recalled, on showing the pre-deposit. Issues:Delay in filing the appeal, non-compliance with Stay Order, pre-deposit of amounts, decision on merit by Commissioner(Appeals).Delay in filing the appeal:The appellants sought to condone a delay of around 350 days in filing the appeal against the order of Commissioner(Appeals) that dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the Stay Order. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Knitted Yarn, were directed to deposit specific amounts as a condition of hearing their appeal. Despite delays in pre-depositing the amounts due to cash flow issues, the appellants eventually made the required deposits. The Commissioner(Appeals) initially dismissed their appeals for non-compliance. However, upon further submissions and evidence of a personal hearing, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the COD application was allowed.Non-compliance with Stay Order:The appellants had to make pre-deposits of specific amounts as directed by the Commissioner(Appeals) to hear their appeals. While there were delays in making the deposits, the appellants eventually complied with the directions. The Tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty, considering the amounts already deposited as sufficient. The Stay Petitions were allowed accordingly.Decision on merit by Commissioner(Appeals):The Commissioner(Appeals) had not decided the appeals on their merits before dismissing them for non-compliance with the Stay Order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a decision on the merits of the appeals. This decision highlighted the importance of addressing the substantive issues of the case before making any determinations based on procedural compliance.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay in filing the appeal, non-compliance with the Stay Order, and the need for a decision on the merits by the Commissioner(Appeals). The delay was condoned, the Stay Petitions were allowed based on the deposits made, and the matter was remanded for a decision on the merits. The judgment emphasized the significance of procedural compliance while ensuring that substantive issues are adequately addressed in the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
