By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, APR 18, 2014: IN DDT 2210, 15/10/2013, we reported -

Queries raised by Bench not answered by Counsel at time of hearing - replying to query after order is passed by filing modification application cannot be entertained: CESTAT

THE   Bench had directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.25,82,211/- within a period of six weeks and report compliance.

Instead of complying with the order, the appellant filed a modification application submitting that when the case was heard on 05/08/2013, the Bench had raised certain queries to which the Counsel could not give any satisfactory reply. Inasmuch as since the Counsel wanted to give the reply now, therefore, the modification application has been filed.

The Bench observed -

"3. We find no merit in the modification application filed by the appellant. The Counsel should have answered the query raised by the Bench at the time of hearing of the stay petition. Replying to the query after the order is passed cannot be entertained and accordingly the modification application is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, two weeks' time is granted to the appellant to make the pre-deposit and report compliance…"

Please See 2013-TIOL-1521-CESTAT-MUM

The matter did not end there.

Inasmuch as the stay order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. And before the High Court, the appellant submitted that they had pleaded financial crisis but this plea was not considered by the Tribunal.

Resultantly, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case for disposal on merits.

And when this matter came before the CESTAT, the Bench noted -

"3. We observe that the appellant has misrepresented the facts before the Hon'ble High Court by stating that they had taken the plea of financial hardship before this Tribunal when the facts were otherwise. This Tribunal cannot assume financial hardship on the part of the appellant when the said plea is not taken. Such conduct on the part of the appellant is highly improper."

Peeved with the conduct of the appellant, but in view of the order of the High Court, the Bench decided to take up the appeal itself for final disposal.

When the counsel for the appellant was asked whether he is ready for the final arguments, one week's time was sought. And so, the Bench granted time and also mentioned that the status quo should be maintained and the Revenue is restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings till the appeal is finally disposed of.

We will keep you posted …

(See 2014-TIOL-586-CESTAT-MUM)