9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 482 - HC - Service TaxRestoration of appeal - CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non compliance of stay order - the stay order stood complied with even though there was a delay of five days in depositing the amount? - Held that - there is a delay of five days in depositing the amount as directed by this Court. The appellant deposited the amount on 5.5.2014 instead of 30.4.2014 due to financial hardship. Examining the factual matrix herein, there appears to be no malafide on the part of the appellant. Thus, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in depositing the amount is condoned. The appeal filed by the appellant shall be heard on merits by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Consequently, the present appeal stands disposed of. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Delay in refiling the appeal condoned. 2. Dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal for non-compliance of stay order. Analysis: Issue 1: The delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a final order dated 30.5.2014. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal for non-compliance of a stay order. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of &8377; 3 lacs by 30.4.2014, but the amount was deposited on 5.5.2014 due to financial hardship. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 30.5.2014 based on this delay. The High Court examined the facts and circumstances, finding no malafide intent on the appellant's part. Consequently, the delay in depositing the amount was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be heard on its merits by the Tribunal. Issue 2: The appellant contended that the stay order had been substantively complied with, even though there was a delay in depositing the amount due to financial crisis. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal based on the technicality that the amount was not deposited by the specified date. The High Court, after considering the factual matrix and lack of malafide intent, decided to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be heard on its merits by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the totality of facts and circumstances in reaching this decision, ensuring that the appellant's case would receive a fair hearing in accordance with the law.
|
