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>Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Deposit Requirements</h1> <h3>5 S LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE</h3> 5 S LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 726 (Tribunal) Issues:Non-compliance with Section 35F of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Stay Order No. 224/85-C.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a case where the appellants were called upon to show cause for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Stay Order No. 224/85-C. The appellants argued that the period in question was covered by Notification No. 246/85-C.E., dated 6-1-1985, and thus, they were not liable to deposit the demanded amount. The Tribunal issued a notice to the appellants for non-compliance, and at the hearing, the appellants reiterated their arguments, while the respondent argued for dismissal due to non-compliance with Section 35F.The facts relevant to the case indicated that the appellants had not complied with the conditions of the Stay Order No. 224/85-C, dated 20-12-1985, which required a bank guarantee within a specified period. The appellants had also filed an application for modification of the stay order, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Section 35F, which required the deposit of duty demanded pending appeal, and failure to comply could lead to dismissal of the appeal.The judgment referred to Section 35F of the Act, which mandated the deposit of duty demanded pending appeal. The notification relied upon by the appellants was analyzed to determine its effect on the demand of duty confirmed against them. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not deposited the duty or complied with the Stay Order, leading to the rejection of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F.The judgment cited a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision, highlighting the importance of complying with the deposit requirements pending appeal. It was emphasized that failure to comply with Section 35F could result in the rejection of the appeal. In this case, since the appellants had not fulfilled the deposit requirements, the Tribunal had no choice but to reject the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F.In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered the appeal to be rejected due to the appellants' non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act and the conditions of the Stay Order.
TaxTMI 