Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.P. Shrivastava and K.K. Lahoti, JJ.
Choudhary Minerals and Chemicals
Versus
Commr.of Cus.and C.Ex.
Mace 15 of 2005 Of
Decided On : Dec 03,2005
CESTAT - Restoration of Appeal - The court considered whether the CESTAT committed an error in not restoring the appeal filed by the appellant, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order, despite the appellant depositing the amount of duty and penalty belatedly and seeking restoration of the appeal by filing an application.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order, and the appellant sought restoration of the appeal after depositing the amount of duty and penalty belatedly due to financial hardship.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the circumstances of financial hardship faced by the appellant and the belated deposit of the amount, and granted ad interim relief by keeping the recovery of interest amount from the appellant in abeyance until the next date of hearing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the restoration of the appeal after non-compliance of the stay order, the appellant's financial hardship, and the leviability of interest on duty and penalty without a show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's financial hardship, belated deposit of the amount, and the absence of a show cause notice regarding the leviability of interest on duty and penalty.
Final Decision: The court granted ad interim relief by keeping the recovery of interest amount from the appellant in abeyance until the next date of hearing.
( 1. ) SHRI U. S. Bhatt, learned counsel with Shri P. K. Tiwari and Shri R. K. Choudhary, learned counsel for appellant.
( 2. ) THIS appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law :1. Whether the CESTAT committed an error in not restoring the appeal filed by the appellant which was dismissed for the non-compliance of the stay order while the appellant deposited the amount of duty and penalty though belatedly and sought restoration of the appeal by filing an application ?
2. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant was restorable after its dismissal for non-compliance of the stay order when the appellant was facing financial hardship and was not in a position to deposit the amount within time period granted by the CESTAT and after dismissal of the appeal deposited the amount and sought restoration of the appeal by explaining circumstances in which amount was not deposited ?
( 3. ) ISSUE notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a period of one week by registered A. D. Ad interim relief
( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant submits that respondent is affecting the recovery in respect of the interest on duty and penalty which is Rs. 2,46,0007-while the appellant deposited the entire duty and penalty and such interest is not leviable as no show cause notice was issued to the appellant in this regard.
( 5. ) CONSIDERING aforesaid, till next date of hearing, recovery of interest amount from the appellant shall remain in abeyance. ( 6. ) BE listed for hearing in 3rd week of January, 2006 for further consideration on ad interim relief. C. C. as per rules.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
