TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 Upholds Customs Tribunal Decision on Deposit Amount; Emphasizes Compliance</h1> <h3>URJA CABLES AND METALS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The High Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the deposit amount of Rs. 5 crore 80 ... Writ jurisdiction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding deposit amounts and stay applications.Analysis:The petitioner challenged orders P. 1 and P. 2 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) in New Delhi. Order P. 1 directed the petitioner to deposit a total amount of Rs. 5 crore 80 lacs in a specific manner by a set deadline. Failure to comply would result in vacation of stay orders and dismissal of appeals. The petitioner sought modification of the order, which was rejected by order P. 2 due to lack of new grounds for waiving deposit or modifying the stay order. The petitioner was given the opportunity to restore appeals if the directed amount was deposited within a specified time frame. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, leading to dismissal of the appeals by CEGAT.The petitioner argued being a sick unit, unable to receive payments directly, and hence unable to deposit the ordered amount. The CEGAT's findings in order P. 1 highlighted discrepancies between bank statements and RT-12 returns, indicating potential issues with duty computation. However, the CEGAT noted the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for total waiver of duty and penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the need for detailed examination of the discrepancies and the importance of applying case law based on specific facts of each case. Additionally, the financial position of the petitioner was considered concerning allegations of clandestine removal and statutory figures not reflecting sale proceeds.In the High Court's judgment, it was noted that the amount ordered to be deposited by CEGAT was just and reasonable considering the total liability of Rs. 51 crores. The Court found no grounds to interfere in the writ petition and subsequently dismissed it. The High Court upheld the decision of CEGAT regarding the deposit amount and the dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and fulfilling obligations as directed by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
