Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order demanding full pre-deposit and refusing waiver was justified despite the appellants' plea of prior disclosure, absence of suppression, and limitation, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration on merits.
Analysis: The correspondence placed on record showed that the department had earlier sought details from the appellants, received explanations and working sheets regarding valuation, and had also approved the RT-12 returns before issuing the show cause notice much later. In these circumstances, the finding of suppression had not been examined with reference to the material correspondence and the plea of limitation also required consideration. The interim order directing full pre-deposit was passed without hearing the appellants, which resulted in denial of fair opportunity. The circumstances justified partial waiver of the pre-deposit and remand so that the appellate authority could examine the merits, including limitation, on the basis of the documents produced.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to partial waiver of pre-deposit, the balance amount alone was required to be deposited, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits after considering the limitation plea and other relevant documents.