9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1005 - AT - Central ExciseStay application - Condonation of delay - Held that - The amount involved in appeal No. E/3161/2010 (SM) in respect of which stay application No. E/S/2939/2010 has been filed, is Rs. 2,52,717/- and the amount involved in appeal No. E/3158/2010 (SM), in respect of which stay application No. E/S/2933/2010 has been filed, is Rs. 48,736/-The amount deposited by the appellant, though after the delay of twenty days, is Rs. 2,52,717/-, which is the amount involved in appeal No. E/3161/2010 in respect of which in terms of para 7, the stay had been granted - it appears that due to typographical mistake, the stay application No. 2939/2010 has been mentioned as stay application No. 2933/2010 and vice-versa - The appellant may file a ROM. However, since the amount of Rs. 2,52,717/- has been deposited and there is no dispute about this, the stay order may be treated as having been complied - The delay of twenty days in deposit of the amount is condoned.
Issues:
1. Stay application No. E/S/2933/2010 in appeal No. E/3158/2010 (SM) 2. Stay application No. E/S/2939/2010 in appeal No. E/3161/2010 Analysis: 1. Stay Application No. E/S/2933/2010 in Appeal No. E/3158/2010 (SM): The appellant was directed to deposit the entire duty amount within four weeks for this appeal. The amount involved was Rs. 48,736/-. The appellant deposited Rs. 2,52,717/-, albeit with a delay of twenty days. The Commissioner confirmed the deposit but noted a typographical error in the stay order, where the stay application numbers were interchanged. It was observed that the pre-deposit should have been ordered for the other appeal, E/3161/2010, where full waiver was granted. Despite the typographical error, since the amount was deposited and not in dispute, the delay was condoned, and the stay order was considered complied with. 2. Stay Application No. E/S/2939/2010 in Appeal No. E/3161/2010: The stay application for this appeal, involving Rs. 2,52,717/-, was allowed, granting full waiver. The confusion arose due to the typographical error in the stay order, which mentioned the wrong application numbers for the respective appeals. The Commissioner confirmed the deposit and acknowledged the error. The appellant was allowed to file a ROM, but the stay order was considered complied with due to the deposit made, with the condonation of the delay in payment. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of stay applications in two appeals, highlighting a typographical error in the stay order that led to confusion in pre-deposit amounts. Despite the error, the deposit made by the appellant was accepted, and the delay in payment was condoned, ensuring compliance with the stay orders.
|
