Rajeev Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Rajeev Kumar Jain vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 23, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26356

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/26356
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 23, 2001
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajeev Kumar Jain

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Excerpt

1. by order passed on 26.7.2001, after hearing the applicant's counsel, the bench directed deposit of rs. 2.50 lakhs out of the penalty imposed on the applicant of rs. 5.00 lakhs.2. compliance was to be reported to day, but on the counsel for the applicant mentioning that an application for modification has been field in the meantime, we took up the application itself for disposal.the only ground in the application for modification of the order if that the applicant's financial hardship. the applicant, after its resignation from hi-tech drugs ltd in september, 1997 has been working in various capacities drawing an insubstantial salary. he has deposited rs. 90,000/-.3. all these facts would no doubt have been within the knowledge of the applicant and therefore of his advocate, when the matte was argued.counsel for the applicant is not able to explain why financial hardship was not even specified as a ground in the stay applicant in and was not orally raised before the tribunal. this is not a case where as a result of the subsequent happening the financial hardship has arisen. there being no change in the circumstances of the applicant whatsoever, we cannot permit such piecemeal argument. we therefore decline to make any change in our stay order but give the applicant a period 15 days from to day within which it should make the deposit.

Full Judgment

1. By order passed on 26.7.2001, after hearing the applicant's counsel, the bench directed deposit of Rs. 2.50 lakhs out of the penalty imposed on the applicant of Rs. 5.00 lakhs.

2. Compliance was to be reported to day, but on the counsel for the applicant mentioning that an application for modification has been field in the meantime, we took up the application itself for disposal.

The only ground in the application for modification of the order if that the applicant's financial hardship. The applicant, after its resignation from Hi-Tech Drugs Ltd in September, 1997 has been working in various capacities drawing an insubstantial salary. He has deposited Rs. 90,000/-.

3. All these facts would no doubt have been within the knowledge of the applicant and therefore of his advocate, when the matte was argued.

Counsel for the applicant is not able to explain why financial hardship was not even specified as a ground in the stay applicant in and was not orally raised before the Tribunal. This is not a case where as a result of the subsequent happening the financial hardship has arisen. There being no change in the circumstances of the applicant whatsoever, we cannot permit such piecemeal argument. We therefore decline to make any change in our stay order but give the applicant a period 15 days from to day within which it should make the deposit.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Rajeev Kumar Jain vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Same Subject Education