9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 72 - HC - Central ExciseTribunal dismissed appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit order - petitioner has neither challenged the order of assessment nor pre-deposit order of tribunal - without challenging order of tribunal the petitioner cannot seek invalidation of the consequential order impugned writ petition is dismissed - liberty is given to the petitioner to file fresh petition for challenging order of tribunal along with the order impugned in this petition.
Issues:
Petition to quash order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Appeal against order of assessment; Application for waiver of pre-deposit; Dismissal of appeal for non-deposit of amount; Challenge of order dated January 28, 2005. Analysis: The petitioner, a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in farming and hatching prawns, filed a petition to quash the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed their appeal against the order of assessment by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount as a condition for hearing the appeal, failing which the appeal would be liable to be dismissed under Section 35-F of the Act. The petitioner applied for waiver of pre-deposit, but the Tribunal upheld its decision. Subsequent applications for modification were also dismissed, and the appeals were ultimately dismissed for non-deposit of the amount. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the order of assessment or the order of January 28, 2005, which directed the deposit of the disputed amount. The Court observed that without challenging the latter order, the petitioner could not seek invalidation of the consequential order resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of challenging the relevant orders. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the order of January 28, 2005, along with the order impugned in the present petition. This decision highlights the significance of challenging specific orders to seek relief effectively in legal proceedings.
|
