Trini Impex and ors. Vs. Ccex

Trini Impex and ors. vs Ccex

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 10, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38057

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/38057
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T C., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Feb 10, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Trini Impex and ors.

Respondent

Ccex

Excerpt

.....the financial position were set out by the petitioner in the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. only vague statement was made that even otherwise the present financial position of the applicant was not sound. the application thus lacked in material particulars about the financial position. in the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be faulted. the writ petition is dismissed".2. the learned advocate states that appellants are proposing to move the apex court against the high court order and seeks further adjournment in the matter.3. in view of the fact that the order of pre-deposit dated 30.7.2004 passed by the tribunal has not been complied with and the writ petition filed by the appellants against the said order has been dismissed by the hon'ble high court of bombay with the observation that the said order cannot be faulted, we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit read with the provisions of section 129e of the customs act, 1962. we also note that the order of the hon'ble high court was passed on 30/11/2004 and the appellants had ample time to make the required pre-deposit thereafter, which has not been made till date.4. as regards the appellants represented by the learned advocate shri a.v. naik (appeal nos. c/927, 926, 903, 904 & 905/02), they have deposited substantial part of their duty liability as noted in the stay order dated 30/7/2004 and hence, their appeals will be taken up for regular hearing on 28/3/2005 without requirement of any pre-deposit.revenue's appeals no. c/247 to 262/03 shall also be taken up for hearing on the said date.

Full Judgment

1. The stay applications filed by the appellants were disposed off by Bench order dated 30/7/2004 noting that the appellants represented by the learned Advocate Shri A.V. Naik had paid Rs. 80 lakhs out of their duty liability of Rs. 1.09 crores, whereas this was not so in respect of the appellants represented by the learned Advocate Shri V.S. Nankani who had paid Rs. 33.5 lakhs against a duty liability of Rs. 5.93 crores. As such, the second groups of appellants were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 60 lakhs towards duty by 31/8/2004 and also to show evidence of deposit of Rs. 32 lakhs claimed to have been deposited earlier and report compliance on 3/9/2004. When the matter came up for compliance earlier, the appellants informed that they have filed a writ petition against the order of pre-deposit before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Today, Shri Niren Shetia, learned Advocate informs that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have dismissed the writ petition, but he does not have a copy of the said order. However, Shri Hitesh Shah, learned SDR and Shri R.B. Pardeshi, learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Department, have produced copy of Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order No. 2570/04 dated 30/11/2004, which reads as follows:- "Heard Mr. N.S. Thakkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

We hardly find any justification in entertaining the writ petition.

No details about the financial position were set out by the petitioner in the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Only vague statement was made that even otherwise the present financial position of the applicant was not sound. The application thus lacked in material particulars about the financial position.

In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed".

2. The learned Advocate states that appellants are proposing to move the Apex Court against the High Court Order and seeks further adjournment in the matter.

3. In view of the fact that the order of pre-deposit dated 30.7.2004 passed by the Tribunal has not been complied with and the writ petition filed by the appellants against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay with the observation that the said order cannot be faulted, we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit read with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. We also note that the order of the Hon'ble High Court was passed on 30/11/2004 and the appellants had ample time to make the required pre-deposit thereafter, which has not been made till date.

4. As regards the appellants represented by the learned Advocate Shri A.V. Naik (appeal Nos. C/927, 926, 903, 904 & 905/02), they have deposited substantial part of their duty liability as noted in the stay order dated 30/7/2004 and hence, their appeals will be taken up for regular hearing on 28/3/2005 without requirement of any pre-deposit.

Revenue's appeals No. C/247 to 262/03 shall also be taken up for hearing on the said date.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Trini Impex and ors. vs Ccex Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T C., T Anjaneyulu