9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pense with such condition has been conferred on the CESTAT only where it is satisfied that the deposit of the duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person. Such discretion has already been exercised by the CESTAT and an order came to be passed on 13.04.2011. The said order has also been upheld by this Court in W.P.Nos.14260 of 2011 and 14329 of 2011. Therefore, according to us, it is not open to the appellants to reagitate the issue. It is also relevant to note that when the appeals were taken up by the CESTAT on 04.02.2013, the appellants did not say that they were under financial crisis nor there was any plea about the hardship being faced by them to comply with the condition under Section 35F of the Act. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty levied. However, as per the proviso, the CESTAT is conferred with the power to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of the revenue. In the present cases, it was pleaded by the appellants that they were unable to deposit the amount as required under Section 35F of the Act and after considering the same, the CESTAT by a common order dated 13.04.2011 directed the petitioners to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- within a period of eight (8) weeks and report compliance on 06.06.2011 to the Assistant Registrar. It was also made clear in the said order that subject to such compliance being reported, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts invol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tension of time granted by the Division Bench. Ultimately, the matter came up before the CESTAT on 04.02.2013. Having taken into consideration the fact that there was no compliance with the conditional order passed by the Tribunal within the time granted by this Court in W.P.Nos.14260 of 2011 and 14329 of 2011, the CESTAT held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35 of the Act as applicable to the Service Tax Appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals were dismissed. Hence, the present Appeals under Section 35G of the Act. Sri C.Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants placing reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in M.I.Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to such person. Such discretion has already been exercised by the CESTAT and an order came to be passed on 13.04.2011. The said order has also been upheld by this Court in W.P.Nos.14260 of 2011 and 14329 of 2011. Therefore, according to us, it is not open to the appellants to reagitate the issue. In fact, if the contentions now raised by the appellants are accepted, it would amount to reviewing the order passed by this Court earlier in W.P.Nos.14260 of 2011and 14329 of 2011. It is also relevant to note that when the appeals were taken up by the CESTAT on 04.02.2013, the appellants did not say that they were under financial crisis nor there was any plea about the hardship being faced by them to comply with the condition under Section 35F of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
