TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Upholds Decision on Stay Petition for Waiver of Pre-deposit</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the first appellate authority's decision in a case involving a stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of a ... Denial of benefit of abatement - Notification No.17/2007-CE dated 01.03.07 - Held that:- On perusal of Notification No.17/2007-CE dated 01.03.07 under which the appellant has sought permission for functioning, prima-facie does not indicate any abatement to be granted to the appellant. In view of this, I find that the first appellate authority was correct in directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount of the duty liability for hearing and disposing the appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere in such an order. Accordingly, I direct the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. Rs.3,70,800/- within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 04.6.12 to the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority on such compliance being reported, will restore the appeal to its original number in its records and dispose the same by recording the findings on merits of the case, after following principles of natural justice - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit, non-compliance of order, abatement benefit eligibility, duty liability, appeal disposalIn this judgment by Mr. M.V. Ravindran of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, a stay petition was filed seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.3,70,800/- along with interest and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty liability amount for the specified period. The appellant argued for the benefit of abatement, but upon reviewing the relevant notification, it was found that no abatement was indicated for the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, directing the appellant to deposit the full duty liability amount within eight weeks and report compliance. The appeal would then be restored for further proceedings on the merits, following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly.The primary issue in this case was the stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of a confirmed amount, interest, and penalty. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, requiring the appellant to deposit the entire duty liability amount. The appellant contended for abatement benefits, but the Tribunal, after examining the relevant notification, found no basis for granting abatement to the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, directing the appellant to deposit the full duty liability amount within eight weeks and report compliance.The Tribunal's analysis focused on the appellant's plea for abatement benefits in the context of the duty liability. The Tribunal reviewed Notification No.17/2007-CE and found no indication of abatement eligibility for the appellant. As a result, the Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority's directive to deposit the entire duty liability amount for the appeal process. The Tribunal emphasized that no grounds existed to interfere with this order, leading to the decision to uphold the requirement for the appellant to deposit Rs.3,70,800/- within eight weeks and report compliance.The judgment concluded by directing the appellant to comply with the deposit requirement within the specified timeframe and report back to the first appellate authority. Upon compliance, the appeal would be reinstated for further proceedings, including a thorough examination of the case's merits while adhering to principles of natural justice. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly, maintaining the decision regarding the duty liability deposit and further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
