9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order in Original confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 7,13,45,045/along with interest thereon against the Appellant. The Appellate Tribunal by the first impugned order dated 16th October 2014 directed the Appellant to make a predeposit of Rs. 1 Crore in addition to the amount already paid by the two Appellants within a period of eight weeks from the said date. The Paragraph 6 of the first impugned order reads thus: "6. In the light of the foregoing, we direct the main appellant M/s.KCF Impex Pvt. Ltd. to make a predeposit of Rs. 1.0 Crore (Rs.One crore only) in addition to the amount already paid and the coappellants, Sri Vivek Kumar Agrawal and Sri. Sunil Lakhotia, to make a predeposit of Rs. 10 lakhs each, within a period of 8 weeks an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of 7.5%. His submission is that some of the High Courts held that though the amendment was brought into force with effect from 6th August 2014, it will apply to the Appeals filed prior to 6th August 2014. He, however, invited our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbus Communications Limited v. Commissioner of S.T., MumbaiIV 2016(44) S.T.R. 578 (Bom.), wherein a view is taken that the amendment which was brought into force on 6th August 2014 was not applicable to the Appeals filed prior to the said date. Lastly he invited our attention to the ground taken in the modification application that considering the amendment in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Delhi High Court has been pleased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions and was not considered. On the contrary, it appears that though the financial constraint was pleaded in the said application, it was not agitated at the time of hearing on 15th September 2014. The submissions made by the Consultant appointed by the Appellant during the hearing of the Application for modification have been noted in Paragraph 3 of the second impugned order dated 23rd January 2015. We find that the Consultant appointed by the Appellant did not argue before the Appellate Tribunal that at the time of hearing of interim relief application, the issue of financial hardship was canvassed and was not dealt with. During the course of hearing of the second Application for modification which was decided by the third impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
