2019 (5) TMI 1625

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant was facing severe financial constrains as it has been subjected to some search and seizure process and its assets were also attached. It is stated, however, that the appellant is willing to deposit the entire mandatory amount (20% of the penalty) - Given the fact that, its appeal has not been adjudicated on merits but dismissed on the ground of failure to comply with the statutory requirem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. The appellant had approached this court claiming the benefit of reduced mandatory pre-deposit to pursue the appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). By order dated 20.05.2015, this court had permitted deposit of reduced amount i.e. 10% of the penalty so determined, within a period of six weeks, subject to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deposit the entire mandatory amount (20% of the penalty). Given the fact that, its appeal has not been adjudicated on merits but dismissed on the ground of failure to comply with the statutory requirement of mandatorily pre-depositing the amount, this court is of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that the request of the appellant be granted. Accordingly, in the event of appellant d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X