TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 while an amount of Rs. Five lac has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 motive. He also deposited pre-deposit amount i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) 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 application are too general in nature and, therefore, deser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lead 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 available on facts, that finding is to be reached by CESTAT....