9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay Order Modification
Analysis: The appellants sought a modification of the Stay Order directing them to pre-deposit Rs. 12,00,000. The advocate representing the appellants stated financial difficulties due to goods seizure and capital loss, leading to an inability to pre-deposit the balance. However, the JDR opposed the plea, emphasizing that all aspects were considered in the original Stay Order. The tribunal noted the lack of detailed financial hardship evidence from the appellant, such as asset details or income tax documents. The Commissioner's order highlighted the appellant's modus operandi and duty liability deductions. Considering the need to safeguard revenue interest under Section 129E of the Act, the tribunal upheld the original Stay Order, dismissing the appeal and rejecting the modification request. Significant Phrases: - Stay Order modification sought due to financial hardship post-seizure - Lack of detailed financial evidence presented by appellant - Commissioner's findings on appellant's operations and duty liability deductions - Revenue interest safeguarding under Section 129E considered - Tribunal's decision to uphold original Stay Order, dismissing appeal and rejecting modification request
|
