9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 555 - AT - Central ExciseModification of stay order - Order of pre deposit - Held that - No prima facie case found for assessee - Modification denied.
Issues: Compliance with predeposit order, modification of Stay Order, financial hardship plea, dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, delivered by Shri P. G. Chacko, involved a case where the appellant was directed to predeposit 50% of the duty amount and report compliance by a specified date. Despite directions, there was no evidence of predeposit on record on the appointed date. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the Stay Order, citing financial hardships. However, no representation was made by the appellant during the proceedings. The Tribunal considered the application but found no prima facie case for modification of the Stay Order. Due to the lack of evidence of predeposit, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The first issue addressed in the judgment was the compliance with the predeposit order issued by the Tribunal. The appellant was directed to predeposit 50% of the duty amount and report compliance by a specified date. However, on the appointed date, there was no evidence of predeposit on record. Despite a miscellaneous application filed by the appellant seeking modification of the Stay Order and citing financial hardships, no representation was made by the appellant during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence of predeposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The second issue involved the appellant's request for the modification of the Stay Order. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the Stay Order on certain grounds, including financial hardships. However, despite considering the application, the Tribunal found no prima facie case for modification of the Stay Order. The appellant's plea of financial hardships was reiterated in the application, but the lack of representation during the proceedings impacted the Tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application for modification of the Stay Order. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with predeposit orders and the implications of non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Despite the appellant's attempt to seek modification of the Stay Order based on financial hardships, the Tribunal found no sufficient grounds for such modification. The dismissal of the appeal underscored the significance of adhering to procedural requirements and fulfilling predeposit obligations as mandated by the law.
|
