Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to waiver of the balance pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal, in the facts where the alleged breach was technical and there was no suppression of facts.
Analysis: The order noted that the omission in the letter of permission was a technical breach capable of being rectified by making an appropriate application before the Development Commissioner. It was also found, on the facts placed before the Tribunal, that the assessee had not suppressed material information regarding clearance of the goods and that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Since the amount already deposited covered the duty attributable to the normal period, it was held sufficient for hearing of the appeal.
Conclusion: The balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the adjudged dues was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The interim relief was granted on the basis that the dispute involved a curable procedural irregularity without suppression, and the existing deposit was treated as adequate for hearing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged violation is only technical and suppression is not established, the extended period cannot be invoked and pre-deposit may be waived if the amount already deposited covers the normal-period liability.