Surya Morphy Richards Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Surya Morphy Richards Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 14, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23795

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/23795
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jun 14, 2001
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surya Morphy Richards Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(135)ELT1376Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. while passing the stay order, the tribunal had noted that the claim of financial hardship has not been supported by any evidence. the application for modification of the stay order is made on the ground of financial hardship. vide letter dated 13.6.2001 the advocate of the applicant requests decision on the application for modification.2. the only evidence in support of the financial hardship is the profit & loss accounts of the applicant for the year ended 31.3.96, 31.3.97 and 31.3.98. apart from the fact that it is not possible to come to the financial hardship only from the profit & loss accounts without considering the balance sheet, absolutely there is no statement as to the financial hardship of the applicant for the period upto 31.3.2001.3. in these circumstances we modify our stay order. if the amount of rs. 5 lakhs is not deposited within a month from the date of receipt of the order and compliance thereof is shown to the commissioner (appeals), the appeal before us stand dismissed. if the deposit is made, the commissioner (appeals) hear and dispose of the appeal on merits.(dictated in court)

Full Judgment

1. While passing the stay order, the Tribunal had noted that the claim of financial hardship has not been supported by any evidence. The application for modification of the stay order is made on the ground of financial hardship. Vide letter dated 13.6.2001 the advocate of the applicant requests decision on the application for modification.

2. The only evidence in support of the financial hardship is the Profit & Loss Accounts of the applicant for the year ended 31.3.96, 31.3.97 and 31.3.98. Apart from the fact that it is not possible to come to the financial hardship only from the Profit & Loss Accounts without considering the Balance Sheet, absolutely there is no statement as to the financial hardship of the applicant for the period upto 31.3.2001.

3. In these circumstances we modify our stay order. If the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is not deposited within a month from the date of receipt of the order and compliance thereof is shown to the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal before us stand dismissed. If the deposit is made, the Commissioner (Appeals) hear and dispose of the appeal on merits.(Dictated in Court)

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Surya Morphy Richards Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Same Subject Right to Information