KALAPALA ANJANEYA SAGARA PRASAD Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, dated 27-9-2013, and sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law:

(2.) The appellant before us preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal and thereafter an application for waiver of pre-deposit was made. The learned Tribunal after considering the said application has passed order on 18-4-2013, whereby it came to the fact finding that the appellant has not produced the evidence in support of the plea of financial hardships and found that the plea of limitation was prima facie untenable on the facts of the case and therefore there is no element of financial or legal hardship.

(3.) On the aforesaid finding the learned Tribunal found that the liability of the appellant has been worked out by the revenue finally at Rs. 60 lakhs and the appellant has paid Rs. 35.25 lakhs. Taking note of the balance amount of liability, the Tribunal granted marginal relief asking the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 24 lakhs. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Tribunal was not challenged. Instead, the appellant approached the learned Tribunal with a Miscellaneous Application No. 25554 of 2013 for modification of stay order. On a reading of the application it does not appear under what provision of law the aforesaid application has been made. Before the Tribunal no one appeared when the application for modification was taken up for hearing. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant says that the modification application was made under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which reads as follows: