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>Court grants condonation of delay, recalls order based on counsels' submissions. Appellants directed to deposit for CESTAT appeals.</h1> <h3>M/s. Gobind Castings P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Another</h3> The court allowed the applications for condonation of delay and recall of the order based on the submissions made by the counsels. Additionally, the court ... Waiver of pre deposit - Held that:- appellants have deposited ₹ 10 lacs and undertaken to deposit ₹ 50 lacs - Upon CESTAT being satisfied that the appellant has deposited ₹ 60 lacs, order dated 15.04.2013, passed by the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal, shall be deemed to have been set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing review applications2. Recall/review of the order dated 21.12.20133. Dismissal of CEA No.56 of 2013 and CEA No.87 of 2013 by CESTAT for failure to deposit Rs.60 lacsIssue 1: Condonation of delay in filing review applicationsThe applications sought to condone a delay of 5 days and 7 days, respectively, in filing the review applications. The counsel for the respondents had no objection to allowing the applications. The court, considering the reasons stated in the applications and the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, allowed the applications and condoned the delays.Issue 2: Recall/review of the order dated 21.12.2013The applications sought to recall/review the order dated 21.12.2013, which dismissed CEA Nos.56 and 87 of 2013 by a common order. Notices of these applications were issued to the respondents. The counsel for the respondents had no objection to allowing the applications. The court, based on the reasons given in the applications and the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, allowed the applications and recalled the order dated 21.12.2013.Issue 3: Dismissal of CEA No.56 of 2013 and CEA No.87 of 2013 by CESTAT for failure to deposit Rs.60 lacsCEA No.56 of 2013 was against an order directing the appellant to deposit Rs.60 lacs, while CEA No.87 of 2013 was dismissed for failure to deposit the same amount. The appellants had deposited Rs.10 lacs and prepared a demand draft of Rs.50 lacs as per the order. The counsel for the revenue had no objection if the entire amount of Rs.60 lacs was deposited. After hearing the parties and reviewing the orders, the court decided to dismiss CEA No.56 of 2013 as the appellant decided to deposit Rs.60 lacs. The appellants were directed to deposit the entire amount within six weeks, and upon satisfaction of the deposit, the order dismissing the appeal would be set aside for further proceedings before CESTAT.This judgment addressed issues related to condonation of delay, recall/review of an order, and the dismissal of appeals for failure to deposit a specified amount. The court allowed the applications for condonation of delay and recall of the order based on the submissions made by the counsels. Additionally, the court provided directions for the appellants to deposit the required amount to proceed with the appeals before the CESTAT.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
