Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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>Collector's Stay Application Dismissed for Lack of Proper Affidavit under CEGAT Rules</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the stay application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, against an order by the Collector of Central Excise ... Strictures against Department for taking things in a most careless and casual manner Issues: Stay application without a proper affidavitIn this case, the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appeal was accompanied by a stay application which lacked the necessary supporting affidavit as required by Rule 28 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The matter was adjourned multiple times due to the absence of a proper affidavit supporting the stay application. The appellant finally submitted an unattested statement purported to be an affidavit by the Assistant Collector (Legal). The respondent argued that this statement did not meet the legal requirements of an affidavit and requested the dismissal of the stay application on this basis.The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule 28(4) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules mandates that the contents of the application for stay must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by the appellant or their authorized agent. The statement submitted by the Assistant Collector, though labeled as an affidavit, did not meet the legal standards of an affidavit as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Code specifies that an affidavit must be sworn before an oath commissioner or a Notary Public. The Tribunal also referred to Order 6 Rule 15, Order 11 Rules 9 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to emphasize the requirements for verification and form of affidavits in legal proceedings.Based on the analysis of the legal provisions and the nature of the statement submitted by the Assistant Collector, the Tribunal concluded that the document presented as an affidavit was, in fact, a verified statement and did not fulfill the criteria of a proper affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application due to its defective nature and non-compliance with the rules governing the submission of affidavits in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
