9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of the appellant to file the appeal. 2. Pre-deposit of the value of goods in custody for hearing the appeals. Competency of the appellant to file the appeal: The judgment addresses the issue of the appellant's competency to file the appeal. The appellant, Shri Rakesh Gupta, declared himself as a deemed proprietor of M/s. Systech Equipment Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that Shri Rakesh Gupta had not suffered any legal injury in the matter, and the appeal should have been filed by the private limited company itself. It was argued that Shri Rakesh Gupta could not claim himself as a "deemed proprietor" of a private limited company. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, concluded that the appeal was incompetent as the appellant could not be considered a legally aggrieved person. Therefore, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed. Pre-deposit of the value of goods in custody for hearing the appeals: The judgment also deals with the issue of pre-deposit for hearing the appeals filed by M/s. Turnkey Software and Shri Rakesh Gupta. The goods worth Rs. 2,32,96,000/- were in the custody of Revenue authorities, while the total amount of duty, fines, and penalties imposed on the appellants was Rs. 1,38,02,931/-. The appellants argued that the value of the goods in custody exceeded the amount demanded from them, and thus requested that the value of the goods be considered as a pre-deposit for the appeal hearings. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal accepted this request based on the circumstances and directed the Registry to list the appeals in the first week of February 2008. Consequently, the stay applications were disposed of accordingly. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issues of the appellant's competency to file the appeal and the pre-deposit of the value of goods in custody for hearing the appeals. The Tribunal found the appellant incompetent to file the appeal as a legally aggrieved person and dismissed the appeal. However, it allowed the pre-deposit request made by the appellants regarding the value of goods in custody, directing the listing of appeals for hearing in the specified timeframe.
|
