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 denies rectification due to improper notice service, grants concession on pre-deposits</h1> <h3>HARYANA CABLE INDUSTRY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI</h3> HARYANA CABLE INDUSTRY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 101 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Rectification of stay order due to incorrect service of notice.Analysis:The appellants filed appeals against an order by the Commissioner imposing duty liabilities and penalties. They also filed stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal directed appellants to make specific pre-deposits within eight weeks to waive the remaining amounts and stay recovery during appeal pendency. The appellants sought rectification of the stay order, claiming incorrect service of notice. They argued that notices should have been sent to their residential addresses as their factory units were closed. However, the Tribunal found that appellants had provided only their factory address in their filings. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants did not disclose their residential addresses intentionally to delay proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants did not inform about any address change after filing the appeals. The Counsel's claim of not receiving notice was dismissed as no affidavit was filed to support it.The Tribunal emphasized that it could not wait indefinitely for appellants to appear, especially considering the substantial duty amounts involved. Despite repeated notices, appellants failed to appear, leading the Tribunal to decide on the stay applications based on merits. The Tribunal granted appellants a significant concession by directing specific pre-deposits and waiving the remaining amounts. The Tribunal found no apparent mistake of fact or law in the stay order. The Tribunal clarified that seeking rectification based on incorrect service of notice was not legally maintainable. The appellants could have filed to set aside the stay order for being passed ex parte but could not seek rectification without any apparent error.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both misc. applications of the appellants. The next hearing was scheduled for compliance reporting of the stay order.
TaxTMI 