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>Tribunal dismisses review and appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit rules.</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the review application and appeals due to appellants' failure to comply with pre-deposit requirements, challenging the review order ... Review petition - HELD THAT:- There is no provision in law to file review petitions again and again and again against review orders. Review petitions can be filed against an order only for errors apparent on the face of it. This is not the case here. The review order dated 24.06.2015 has attained finality in as much as it has not been challenged in any High Court by these appellants. The review order dated 24.06.2015 is a speaking order which also has reflected as to how the appellants have tried to mislead the Bench. As discussed in the brief facts, the sequence of this case only points towards the appellants trying to take the Bench for granted and make a mockery of the entire system. I cannot allow such travesty of justice. The review application alongwith the condonation of delay for which no cogent reason has been given, is therefore dismissed as rejected. Issues involved:Review petitions challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 24.06.2015, subsequent amended review petition, COD applications for delay, legality of the review order, pre-deposit requirement, jurisdiction to file multiple review petitions, finality of review order, conduct of the appellants, misrepresentation, dismissal of appeals.Analysis:1. The review petitions were filed challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 24.06.2015, alleging it was null and void due to the Tribunal's acceptance of an extension for realization of export proceeds. The appellants also filed COD applications for the delay in filing the review petitions.2. A stay order was initially passed in 2009, requiring a 10% pre-deposit of the penalty amount. Subsequently, a modification application was made to dispense with the entire amount. One appellant's order was quashed by the High Court. The detailed review order of 24.06.2015 rejected the review petition due to delay and the appellant's conduct.3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued the case on merits, claiming the orders were null and void without proper authority. The respondent objected, citing the appellants' disregard for legal procedures and the lack of provision for multiple review petitions.4. The respondent contended that the review order had attained finality as it was not challenged in the High Court, and the appellants failed to pre-deposit the required amount. The sequence of events indicated the appellants' attempt to mislead the Tribunal and disregard legal provisions.5. The Tribunal noted that review petitions can only be filed for errors apparent on the face of the order, which was not the case here. The review order of 24.06.2015 was final, and the appellants' conduct reflected an attempt to manipulate the system. The review application was dismissed for lack of cogent reasons and failure to pre-deposit as mandated by FEMA.6. The Tribunal dismissed the review application and the appeals due to the appellants' failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement and their repeated attempts to challenge the review order. One appeal was listed for final hearing, while the others were dismissed.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the key arguments, decisions, and legal principles applied by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
