9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate, For the Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate, RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (Oral) By way of this order, we shall dispose of STAs No.3 and 4 of 2013 as they involve adjudication of identical question between the same parties. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from STA No.3 of 2013. The appellant-Municipal Corporation, Karnal is before us in an appeal imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,230/-, penalty and interest. The Tribunal allowed the application on 11.12.2012 by directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 4,54,230/-. The Municipal Corporation filed an appeal against this order, before this Court, but before the appeal could be taken up for consideration, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.04.2013 for failure to comply with order dated 11.12.2012. The operative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporation engaged a private Chartered Accountant who did not pursue the matter leading to delay in compliance with the order passed by the CESTAT and consequently, default in depositing the amount, as directed by CESTAT, within the stipulated period. Counsel for the revenue submits that the Municipal Corporation has been negligent in pursuing the appeal and, therefore, may not be rewarded for its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal Corporation did not pursue the appeal, did not absolve officers of the Municipal Corporation from seeking information relating to the appeal, but as the Municipal Corporation has deposited the amount determined by the CESTAT and the matter in dispute involves public funds, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the CESTAT. The Municipal Corporation sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
