9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application for modification of Stay Order Nos. 1488 & 1489/2009 u/s 35C(1A) of the CEA, 1944 and Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules.
Summary: The applicant filed an application seeking modification of Stay Order Nos. 1488 & 1489/2009, requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 crores. The applicant argued that they were not given a fair hearing, citing violation of natural justice principles. They claimed that their absence was due to genuine reasons, including medical grounds, and requested a recall of the impugned Stay Order. The applicant also highlighted that the Tribunal failed to consider crucial evidence and legal aspects, such as the Country of Origin of goods and financial losses suffered. The applicant relied on legal provisions and previous tribunal decisions to support their case. The Special Counsel for the Revenue opposed the application, referring to a High Court decision stating that the Tribunal should not modify stay orders passed earlier. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted the legal position outlined by the High Court, emphasizing that once an order for waiver of pre-deposit is passed, it cannot be modified subsequently like an appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's application and dismissed it.
|
