2016 (4) TMI 1073

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....M.DESHPANDE, JJ. ORDER Heard Advocate Parchure for the applicant and Advocate Deshpande for the non-applicants/respondents. It is not in dispute that CESTAT by the order passed on 29.7.2013 ordered pre-deposit of 50%, which roughly works out to Rs. Fifteen lac. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, an amount of Rs.ten lac was already deposited with the Department whil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rit petition was withdrawn to avail remedy of statutory appeal and ultimately the present appeal under Section 35(g) has been filed. In the appeal, there is a challenge to the order dated 29.7.2013 and also to the order dated 28.1.2014. In this situation, though we find that there are some lapses on the part of the applicant/appellant, it cannot be said that those lapses are with any oblique motiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llate authority, namely the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same were also reiterated before the CESTAT. Perusal of the application for grant of stay shows in paragraphs 11 and 23 grounds regarding financial hardship. Advocate Parchure submits that those grounds are not looked into by the said authorities. Advocate Deshpande submits that the contents in paragraphs 11 and 23 in the stay applicati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inancial hardship, if any. If the appellant does not plead the same, CESTAT would not be required to consider it. But if there was any pleading to that effect, CESTAT was bound to go into the same. Impugned order does not show any consideration of financial hardship. Impugned order dated 29.7.2013, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional error. Even if pleadings are deficient or ground is not avail....