TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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>Appellant's Appeal Denied for Pre-Deposit Modification despite Sick Unit Status</h1> The Tribunal denied the appellant's request to modify a pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, despite the unit ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues: Application for modification of pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 based on the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (Central Act 1 of 1986).In this judgment, the issue revolved around an application seeking modification of a Tribunal order directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellant argued that under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, a sick industrial unit should not be required to make any pre-deposit to exercise the right of appeal. The appellant's unit had been declared sick, and the legal proceedings, including the execution of any order against the unit, were suspended under the Central Act 1 of 1986. The appellant also cited a ruling by the West Regional Bench to support their argument. The appellant sought an extension of time and prayed for further consideration due to the unit's sick nature.The Respondent, however, raised concerns about revenue collection and opposed any extension beyond a specified date. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and held that Section 22 of the Central Act 1 of 1986 did not impose a statutory bar on the operation of Section 35F regarding pre-deposit. The Tribunal differentiated between distress or attachment of properties of a sick unit and the pre-deposit requirement for appeal rights. It noted that the ruling cited by the appellant did not address this aspect and that the appellant's plea did not directly relate to the overriding effect of Section 22. The Tribunal acknowledged the sick nature of the unit, its financial position, and recovery of outstanding amounts. Despite considering the appellant's offer to pre-deposit a substantial sum, the Tribunal declined the modification request. However, in light of the circumstances, the Tribunal granted a further extension of six months for the pre-deposit, setting a compliance deadline. The case was scheduled for a compliance report on the specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
