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>Tribunal grants extension for appeal filing and allows duty payment in instalments post-proprietor's demise.</h1> <h3>LEATHER CLOTH PROCESSORS & PRINTERS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY-I</h3> LEATHER CLOTH PROCESSORS & PRINTERS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY-I - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 409 (Tribunal) Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, condonation of delay, stay application, waiver of pre-deposit, grant of stay, payment of duty amount.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, BOMBAY, the issue of delay in filing the appeal was addressed. The appellants, represented by Shri Parakh, Advocate, pleaded for condonation of the delay due to unforeseen circumstances. The proprietor of the firm had passed away, and his widow, who was to look after the business, was also facing health issues. The delay was explained to be a result of these unexpected events. On the other hand, Shri Bharati Chavan, JDR for the Department, opposed the application, highlighting that the delay occurred even after the proprietor's demise. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, exercised its discretion and condoned the delay, acknowledging the genuine reasons presented by the appellants.Regarding the stay application, the appellants were required to deposit a significant sum towards duty and penalty. The appellants had already deposited a partial amount during the adjudication proceedings but were unable to pay the remaining balance immediately due to liquidity issues arising from the closure of the factory. Shri Parakh requested a stay or waiver of pre-deposit, or an extended period for payment. Ms. Charati Chavan opposed the stay application, arguing for the necessity of a cash deposit for the duty amount. The Tribunal noted the need for a detailed examination of the alleged duty evasion and ruled that the entire duty amount must be secured by a cash deposit. However, considering the liquidity problems faced by the appellants, the Tribunal granted a five-month period to deposit the remaining duty amount, allowing for payment in instalments if necessary. Compliance was required within the stipulated period, with the Department authorized to monitor the payment. Upon the deposit of the duty amount, a stay and waiver of penalty recovery were granted.
TaxTMI 