Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-07-04
With above order of the Supreme Court we are of the view that when even the highest court of the country cannot decide the matter in the division bench and matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. In our view, the de-novo adjudication should be passed only after the outcome of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Larger Bench decision, therefore, we have consciously given the direction to the adjudicating authority which in our view does not suffer from any apparent mistake. Moreover, when this bench after considering all the submissions made by both the sides given finding which, if does not suit to parties that cannot amount to apparent error.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-03
Heard on the stay applications filed by the Appellant Department seeking stay on execution of orders of refund that were allowed by the Commissioner (Appelas) by order No. MKK/397-398/RGDAPP/18-19 dtd. 21-12-2018. Learned DR for the Appellant submits that unless stay is granted, the department would incur financial loss as it has a strong case on merit but in producing a bank statement, wherein refunds have already been shown as credited to the Appellant’s account, Learned Counsel for the respondent company submitted that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has already been given effect for which stay application has become redundant.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-03
Heard on the COD applications. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that delay was 47 days and ground of delay could be attributable to the engagement of staff uring mandatory Audit procedure for which he received the OIA just before the due date of filing of appeal was due. Part of the delay was also due to his own engagement in other cases for which appeal Memo for all 3 appeals could not be prepared and presented on time.
Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-07-03
Shri K. Sivakumar, learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that both the contracts are dated 24-8-2007 and have been made operational simultaneously in order to make facility for the service recipient. He thus argued that both these contracts have to be read as one in view of the judgment dated 28-2-2010 given by ITAT in the case of appellant itself wherein it was held that such contracts are required to be considered as one composite contract only.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-06-28
The findings as recorded in para 6 and 11 are factually incorrect as they have urged several other ground elaborated in their appeal memo. In fact they had not conceded any of the grounds referred to in their appeal memo.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-06-24
After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the grounds taken in the COD application, though we do not find any concrete ground to condone such an inordinate delay of 362 days, by considering the nature of activities of the appellant and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay but subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each appeal, within a month. List on 24/07/2019 for ascertaining compliance.
Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-06-21
Today when the rectification of mistake applications are listed, the appellant appeared in person and submitted that he had heart attack, brain hemmorhage and was undergoing treatment for long time and could not appear during the hearing date and also that could not file application for rectification of mistake within time
Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-06-20
On perusal of records, it is seen that appellant had in fact filed an application for extension of time on 14.08.2013 in the nature of an ROA application. The said application was posted for hearing on 18.11.2013. Meanwhile, the appeal came to be listed on 10.09.2013 for compliance of pre deposit and was dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit. Taking note of these facts together with the submission that the appellant has now paid up the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, we allow the application for restoration of appeal filed by the appellant. However, since there has been huge delay on the part of the appellant to comply with the pre deposit, we are of the opinion that the appellant has to be put on terms. The application for restoration of appeal will stand allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the appellant to the Revenue on or before 10.07.2019. On failure to comply with the direction to pay cost, the application for Restoration of Appeal will stand dismissed without any further notice.
Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-06-19
After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the Order-in-Original was passed on 10.05.2016 and the appellants/applicants have filed their appeals on 18.01.2019. These matters were listed before this Bench earlier and the ld.D.R. for the Revenue, was asked to enquire whether any recovery proceedings against the appellants/applicants were initiated by the Department since substantial period had already lapsed before filing the appeal. On enquiry from the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), it was intimated that there is nothing on record showing that any proceedings were initiated against the appellants/applicants for recovery of the penalties imposed.
Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-06-14
On a perusal of the appeal record, I do not find any application by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit nor has the appellant furnished any waiver order of the higher forum of the pre-deposit.