9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of individual appellants, having regard to their peculiar circumstances, should be considered individually and separate orders should be passed, rather than making an order that has to depend on the outcome of some other appellant’s compliance with the terms of order in his (or its) case. - Tribunal to rehear the case - Decided in favor of assessee. - CEAC Nos. 34-36 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat and R.V. Easwar, JJ. Shri Pankaj Bhatia with Ms. Mehak Khajuria, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Issue notice. 2. Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Revenue and submits that the appeals may be disposed of wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, balance of dues from all the applicants shall be waived and recovery of same shall be stayed during pendency of the appeal. If such deposit is not made, all the appeals are liable to be rejected without further notice to the applicants. 5. Apparently K.P. Pouches felt aggrieved by the order dated 8-12-2012 and approached this Court in an appeal, in CEAC No. 9/2012 which was however dismissed. It did not comply with the order; consequently, its appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal. In the above background, the present appeals were taken up for hearing. The Tribunal following its previous order dismissed the appeals for non-compliance and also dismissed their appeals in the following terms :- Vide common order dated 26th of March 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- for Supreme Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 50,00,000/- for Supreme Trading Co. In these circumstances the Tribunal should not have proceeded to pass a blanket order making the waiver of pre-deposit conditional upon M/s. K.P. Pouches depositing the amount. The Tribunal had to necessarily go into the facts of each appellant s case and all the relevant questions, such as the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship, if any, and indicate with clarity the amount they were required to deposit for the whole or part of liability. The omission to do so has led to the present situation, which is not the first of its kind. We notice that this kind of grievance has been voiced earlier also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
