Appeal dismissed for failure to make court-ordered pre-deposit after e-filing seeking relief yielded no favorable order despite two-month extension CESTAT, New Delhi (AT) dismissed the appeal for failure to make the court-ordered pre-deposit. The bench noted the appellant had been granted two months ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal dismissed for failure to make court-ordered pre-deposit after e-filing seeking relief yielded no favorable order despite two-month extension
CESTAT, New Delhi (AT) dismissed the appeal for failure to make the court-ordered pre-deposit. The bench noted the appellant had been granted two months to comply and had since approached the HC by e-filing, but no favorable HC order existed as of the hearing date. Because the pre-deposit was not made, the appeal was dismissed.
Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT New Delhi) recorded repeated adjournments granted to enable the appellant to make the statutory pre-deposit required for continuation of the appeal. The order of 12.11.2024 expressly warned that "in the event the deposit is not made the Bench may pass the appropriate order." Counsel later informed the Tribunal that an e-filing had been made in the High Court, but no stay or favourable order from the High Court had been produced. For failure to comply with the condition precedent of making the pre-deposit within the extended timelines, the Tribunal held itself "constrained to pass the order, dismissing the present appeal for not making the pre deposit." The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-compliance with the mandated pre-deposit requirement.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
