Swastik Calendar Factory vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Ahmedabad 1

We have heard Ms.Paurmi Sheth, learned counsel appearing for appellant. 2.0 The questions proposed as substantial questions of law in this tax appeal are as under:

“[A] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant without considering the merits of the case and only on the ground of non­ compliance of the stay­order dated 28.07.2006?

[B] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by drawing adverse inference against the appellant for non­compliance of condition to deposit Rs.10 Lacs as a condition precedent for granting stay to the appellant?

[C] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in ignoring the relevant factors and materials on record and by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and factors relating into perverse order by not dealing with the case of the appellant on merits?

[D] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law and rejecting the rectification application filed by the appellant by rejecting the same only on the ground that the appellant has failed to deposit the amount of Rs.10 Lacs as a condition precedent for granting stay by the Ld. Tribunal instead of deciding the appeal of the appellant on merits?

3.0 The Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejecting the appeal as the appellant has not made the pre­ deposit nor filed any application for waiver within time. admitted on the following proposed substantial question of law. Even the Review Application has been rejected. Further, the Tribunal recorded the finding that no modification application has been filed against the order passed by the Tribunal and the condition of the stay order was not complied with by the appellant.

4.0 In view of above facts, the questions proposed do not raise any substantial question of law worth consideration of this Court. Therefore, this Tax Appeal is not required to be entertained.

5.0 Accordingly, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.

Amit [V. M. SAHAI, J.] [N. V. ANJARIA, J.]