9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 813 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Held that - Vide Note Order dated 8.1.2014 and 5.2.2014, after considering the various orders of the Hon ble High Courts, directed the appellant to produce a stay order against the Tribunal s order 2013 (12) TMI 209 - CESTAT CHENNAI . On a query from the Bench, the learned counsel neither produced any stay order from the higher forum nor has complied with the stay order dated 26.8.2013 of the Tribunal. In view of that the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
Non-compliance with stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: 1. Background and Stay Orders: The appellants were directed to make a further predeposit of Rs. 40 lakhs within a specified period and report compliance. Despite filing an application for modification of the stay order, the Tribunal dismissed the modification applications but extended the compliance period. The appellants approached the Madras High Court through a writ petition, which was subsequently dismissed, leading to the filing of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) challenging the main stay order. 2. Court Proceedings and Compliance: The Tribunal, upon reviewing the records, noted that the appellant was directed to produce a stay order against the Tribunal's order. However, the appellant failed to produce any stay order from a higher forum or comply with the Tribunal's stay order dated 26.8.2013. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of complying with stay orders issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite attempts to challenge the orders through higher courts, the failure to produce necessary documentation and adhere to the directives led to the dismissal of the appeal. This case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations and consequences associated with non-compliance with judicial orders in matters concerning excise regulations.
|
