9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from today for making pre-deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs, as ordered by the Tribunal. On making such deposit, stay petitions filed would stand restored. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeals disposed of - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 488 to 495 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr K. Magesh For the Respondent : Mr. A. P. Srinivas Standing Counsel for Customs ORDER ( Judgment of the Court was made by S. Manikumar,J. ) M/s.Neycer India Limited, Tiles Division, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry 605 005 has filed four appeals, viz., E/40221 to 40224 of 2014 and four Stay Application Nos.E/Stay/40363 to 40366/2014 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the condition imposed is such which for all intent and purport takes away the appellants vested right of appeal and works as a deterrent or disables and impedes access to a forum viz, CESTAT which is meant for redressal of the grievance of an assessee suffering an adverse order and results in rendering the statutory remedy of appeal illusory? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal in as much as it has not even considered nor rendered any finding on the existence or otherwise of 'undue hardship' while exercising its power to dispense with pre-deposit under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act suffers from non-consideration of relevant aspect/statutory condition stands vitiated 6. When the instant appeals were taken up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g orders, dismissing all the appeals. Order dated 30/7/2014, reads thus:- By Stay Order Nos.40578 40581/2014 dated 28/3/2014, the appellants were directed to make pre-deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- lakhs within a period of six weeks. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that they have neither complied the stay order nor seeking extension of stay. Since the appellants failed to comply with the stay order all the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. 11. Though the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the conditional order of pre-deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs, within the time frame, CESTAT, Madras has not considered as to whether there was any existence or non-existence of undue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
