9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant does not plead the same, CESTAT would not be required to consider it. But if there was any pleading to that effect, CESTAT was bound to go into the same. Impugned order does not show any consideration of financial hardship. Impugned order dated 29.7.2013, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional error. Even if pleadings are deficient or ground is not available on facts, that finding is to be reached by CESTAT only. At this stage, we are not inclined to set aside the order dated 29.7.2013 because in the meanwhile, pre-deposit as envisaged therein, has already been made. We allow the respondents to withdraw the amount deposited with the Registry of this Court along with the interest accrued thereon. In view of this, dismissal of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed another writ petition. That writ petition was withdrawn to avail remedy of statutory appeal and ultimately the present appeal under Section 35(g) has been filed. In the appeal, there is a challenge to the order dated 29.7.2013 and also to the order dated 28.1.2014. In this situation, though we find that there are some lapses on the part of the applicant/appellant, it cannot be said that those lapses are with any oblique motive. He also deposited pre-deposit amount in the meanwhile. The applicant/appellant appears to have acted as per the legal advice. In this situation, subject to payment of costs of ₹ 1,000/- to the respondents within two weeks from today, we condone the delay and direct the Registry to register the appeal. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s needed appreciation by CESTAT. While considering the issue of predeposit, CESTAT is not only expected to consider the prima facie case but also balance of convenience and for that purpose financial hardship, if any. If the appellant does not plead the same, CESTAT would not be required to consider it. But if there was any pleading to that effect, CESTAT was bound to go into the same. Impugned order does not show any consideration of financial hardship. Impugned order dated 29.7.2013, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional error. Even if pleadings are deficient or ground is not available on facts, that finding is to be reached by CESTAT only. At this stage, we are not inclined to set aside the order dated 29.7.2013 because in the meanwh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
