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 criticizes CESTAT, grants stay on order, emphasizes avoiding multiple proceedings</h1> <h3>SASWAD MILL SUGAR FACTORY LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., PUNE-III</h3> The High Court criticized CESTAT for dismissing an appeal due to non-compliance with a stay order while a related appeal was pending before the High ... Demand of service tax - Order passed for predeposit - Non compliance for said order - Held that:- appeal was dismissed when the matter was pending before this court by the Tribunal even when its attention was brought to the fact inspite of that the appeal was dismissed. We are aware that it is open to the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance. We are also aware of the fact that it is open to the Tribunal in the absence of pre-deposit by the stipulated date to dismiss the appeal. However, when a party brings to the notice of the Tribunal that an appeal is preferred and is pending judicial exercise to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, would be to grant reasonable time to enable the petitioner to produce an order from this court, and on failure to do so proceed with the matter - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT for non-compliance of stay order.2. Failure of CESTAT to consider appeal pending before High Court.3. Request for amendment of memo of appeal.4. Grant of stay of CESTAT's order and Commissioner's order.Dismissal of Appeal by CESTAT for Non-Compliance of Stay Order:The appellant's counsel sought adjournment before CESTAT based on the appeal challenging the order dated 14 May 2013 pending before the High Court. Despite bringing this to CESTAT's attention, the tribunal insisted on compliance and subsequently dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The High Court criticized this action, stating that CESTAT should have awaited the High Court's decision before taking any action. The High Court emphasized the importance of justice and avoiding multiple proceedings in such cases.Failure of CESTAT to Consider Appeal Pending Before High Court:The High Court highlighted a previous case where the Tribunal dismissed an appeal despite being aware of its pendency before the High Court. The Court emphasized that when a party informs the Tribunal about a pending appeal to avoid multiple proceedings, the Tribunal should grant reasonable time for the party to provide relevant orders. The High Court set aside the dismissal order, varied the pre-deposit amount, and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits.Request for Amendment of Memo of Appeal:The High Court permitted the appellant to amend the memo of appeal challenging the CESTAT's order dated 3 July 2013 within 10 days. This allowance was made in light of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the appeal and the pending legal proceedings.Grant of Stay of CESTAT's Order and Commissioner's Order:The High Court granted a stay on the CESTAT's order dated 3 July 2013, which dismissed the appellant's appeal. Additionally, an ad-interim stay was granted on the Commissioner's order dated 17 October 2012, which confirmed the imposition of service tax. This stay was to remain in effect until further orders were issued. The High Court scheduled the appeal for a hearing on 18 July 2013 and instructed the necessary parties to serve copies of the order accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
