Excise & Customs : Where assessee had claimed that notice for hearing of stay application was not furnished to him and pre-deposit order was passed by Tribunal without hearing him, High Court remanded matter back to Tribunal
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 558 (Andhra Pradesh)
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Harik Resins (P.) Ltd.
v.
CESTAT, Bangalore*
G. ROHINI AND A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 27770 OF 2013†
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
Section 35F , read with section 11A, of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Deposit, pending appeal, of duty/tax demanded or penalty levied - Assessee-company and its managing director challenged demand/penalty and personal penalty vide separate appeals and also sought stay of demand - Tribunal recorded that no one was present nor any adjournment was sought and ordered partial pre-deposit - Assessee challenged said order same on ground that there was no notice for hearing of stay application - Tribunal records obtained under RTI Act disclosed that notice was sent and served in appeal filed by Managing Director and not in appeal filed by assessee company - HELD : There is some confusion with regard to appeal numbers preferred by assessee-company and its managing director in his individual capacity - There was no reason to disbelieve assessee - Since impugned order was passed without hearing assessee, matter was remanded back to Tribunal [Paras 8 to 11] [In favour of assessee]
Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. V. Gopala Krishna Gokhale, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 558 (Andhra Pradesh)
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Harik Resins (P.) Ltd.
v.
CESTAT, Bangalore*
G. ROHINI AND A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 27770 OF 2013†
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
Section 35F , read with section 11A, of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Deposit, pending appeal, of duty/tax demanded or penalty levied - Assessee-company and its managing director challenged demand/penalty and personal penalty vide separate appeals and also sought stay of demand - Tribunal recorded that no one was present nor any adjournment was sought and ordered partial pre-deposit - Assessee challenged said order same on ground that there was no notice for hearing of stay application - Tribunal records obtained under RTI Act disclosed that notice was sent and served in appeal filed by Managing Director and not in appeal filed by assessee company - HELD : There is some confusion with regard to appeal numbers preferred by assessee-company and its managing director in his individual capacity - There was no reason to disbelieve assessee - Since impugned order was passed without hearing assessee, matter was remanded back to Tribunal [Paras 8 to 11] [In favour of assessee]
Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. V. Gopala Krishna Gokhale, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment