KOTAK CHEMICALS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, present Tax Appeal is taken up for final hearing today as the dispute involved in the present Tax Appeal is in a very narrow compass. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original appellant challenging the impugned orders dated 28-6-2012 as well as 29-8-2012 (Annexures A and B) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT").

(2.) It appears from the proceedings and the pleadings that against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Surat dated 28-2-2011 passed in OIA No. RKA/81-82/SRT-I/2011, the Appellate preferred appeal before the CESTAT and in the said appeal, the appellant submitted the application for stay/for waiver of pre-deposit. The same came to be adjourned from time to time and lastly it was adjourned to 28-6-2012. That on 28-6-2012 an adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant, which came to be rejected by the Tribunal and by ex parte order dated 28-6-2012, the learned Tribunal granted the stay of recovery on condition to deposit entire amount of duty liability by the appellant within a period of 8 weeks. It appears that thereafter as the aforesaid order of pre-deposit was not complied with by the appellant, by subsequent order dated 29-8-2012 the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid order dated 28-6-2012 (of pre-deposit of amount by the appellant) as well as subsequent Order dated 29-8-2012 rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit, the appellants have preferred the present appeal along with stay application.

(3.) Shri Deven Parikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that as such by communication dated 18-6-2012, the appellant pleaded the financial hardship by submitting the documentary evidences, however without considering the same, the Tribunal had passed an order dated 28-6-2012. It is, therefore, the case on behalf of the appellant that the question with respect to the financial hardship pleaded by the appellant had not been considered by the Tribunal while pasting order of pre-deposit/waiver of pre-deposit. It is submitted that as such the company is closed since 6 to 7 years and even it was pointed out that net worth of the company is negatived. Therefore, it is requested to either remand the matter to the learned Tribunal to consider the question of waiver of pre-deposit afresh or consider the case of the waiver of pre-deposit by this Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case he has left it to the Court the amount to be deposited as pre-deposit.