9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (7) TMI 181 - HC - CustomsAppeals seeking to pre-deposit a sum of 50 lac instead of 2.65 crore Tribunal in matter remanded back from HC decided that appellant are not having financial hardship as undisputed assets of more than 4.3 crores are available with assessee, so assessee is required to deposit entire amount of 2.65 crore - Tribunal also observed that it appears that the assets of the appellants are systematically getting eroded by passage of time there is no reason to interfere with the order of tribunal
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding pre-deposit amount for entertaining appeals. Analysis: The appellants challenged the Tribunal's order dated 16th January, 2006, dismissing their applications to deposit a reduced sum for pre-deposit, contrary to the earlier directive of Rs. 2.65 crores. The Tribunal had initially directed specific pre-deposit amounts for each appellant, leading to writ petitions and subsequent court interventions. The Single Judge allowed the appellants to apply for reduced deposits due to financial crisis claims. However, when the matter returned to the Tribunal, the appellants failed to deposit as required, resulting in dismissal. A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, instructing a fresh consideration. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, refused to revive proceedings without pre-deposit, prompting the appellants' appeal. The appellants argued that they had a strong case on merit, questioning the Tribunal's refusal to accept the reduced deposit offer. They contended that the Tribunal erred by not providing adequate reasons in its previous order, necessitating the High Court's intervention. However, upon review, the High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was well-founded. The Tribunal had noted substantial assets held by the appellants but also observed a systematic erosion of these assets over time. Considering these factors, the Tribunal rightfully insisted on the full pre-deposit amount as previously directed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, deeming it well-reasoned and declining to interfere. In conclusion, all three appeals challenging the Tribunal's order were dismissed on 3rd July 2007.
|
