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 orders Petitioner to pay Rs. 40 lakhs in Customs Tribunal challenge, emphasizing duty to pay for imported goods.</h1> <h3>RAMAKRISHNA SALES P. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court directed the Petitioner to pay an additional Rs. 40 lakhs, balancing equity between parties in a challenge to the Customs Excise and Service Tax ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Financial hardship Issues:Challenge to Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing payment against demand, consideration of financial hardships, balancing equity between parties, direction to pay additional sum, compliance with Customs Act.Analysis:Challenge to Tribunal's Order:The writ petition under Article 226 challenges the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2.5 crores against a demand of Rs. 5.3 crores. The Petitioner argued that their grounds for seeking a stay, including financial hardships, were not adequately considered. The Respondent contended that the demand was lawful, and the Petitioner must pay the full amount. The Court noted the Petitioner had already paid Rs. 1 crore and deposited Rs. 1.5 crores, requesting relaxation of the stay condition.Balancing Equity:The Court acknowledged the duty to pay for imported goods but emphasized that measures should not render the business unviable. Balancing equity, the Court directed the Petitioner to pay an additional Rs. 40 lakhs. Failure to comply within 8 weeks would allow the Tribunal to proceed as deemed fit. The Petitioner was granted a final opportunity to deposit the amount, with the appeal not to be dismissed for non-compliance of the Customs Act.Compliance and Disposal:The Court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the Petitioner to bear the additional sum and granting a three-month window for payment. The Tribunal was allowed to take appropriate action if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated time. The application related to the order was dismissed as infructuous, aligning with the judgment's directives. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and the appeal would not be dismissed during the specified period for non-compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
