9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal at this point of time, more so when the issue has become stale by efflux of time. The appellant is unable to point out any question of law that warrants consideration by this Court to justify this appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C.M.A. NO. 61 OF 2015 And M.P. NO. 1 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2015 - Mr. R.Sudhakar And Mr. R. Karuppiah, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. G.RM.Palaniappan JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by it, appellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal by raising the following questions of law :- 1) Whether the first respondent Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y but also other goods not manufactured by them, is also prima facie not tenable in the light of the statement of Shri Sundaram, dealer and proprietor of M/s.Adhavan Agency, who prepared the line sales report of Swathy Industry admitted that all the sales reflected in the reports were those of goods manufactured by Swathy Industry and by the statement of Shri Shanmugam, another dealer who also corroborated the statement of Shri Sundaram. In these circumstances, prima facie, the denial of the request of the assessees for cross-examination of Suresh Kumar, from whose residence the line sales report relied upon for the purpose of computing the demand, is not fatal to the case of the Department. The denial of the request for cross-examination o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal holding that the very same argument is sought to be reagitated and that the conditional order having not been complied with, therefore, the appeal got to be dismissed. The said order reads as under :- The applicants seek modification of Stay Order No.70- 75/10 dated 01.02.2010 by which pre-deposit of ₹ 1 Crore has been directed, on the ground that Section 4A assessment should have been resorted to by the authorities instead of Section 4 assessment. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that this very same argument had been raised during the hearing of the stay petition and has been considered in para 2 of the stay order. The applicants are now seeking to reargue the application which is not permissible in law. We, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant having submitted that the appellant is not in a position to make the pre-deposit, the Tribunal thought it fit to dismiss the appeal. In view of the well considered order of the Tribunal, wherein the prima facie case and financial hardship of the appellant were taken into consideration while ordering pre-deposit, which order has not been complied with, the bona fide of the appellant in filing the appeal now itself is in question. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal at this point of time, more so when the issue has become stale by efflux of time. The appellant is unable to point out any question of law that warrants consideration by this Court to justify this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
