Cesc LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)
Held
The High Court found the appellant's failure to pay court fees and the explanation for the delay to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeal and the interlocutory application were dismissed.
Facts
The appellant, CESU Limited, failed to pay a deficit court fee of Rs. 188/- for over four years. They also sought condonation for a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal, offering an unsatisfactory explanation.
Key Issues
The primary issues were the appellant's failure to pay the deficit court fees and the unsatisfactory explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 20.12.2022
I. A. No.28 of 2018 and OTAPL No.18 of 2018 03. The Appellant had been unable to pay the deficit Court fees of Rs.188/- for over four years. Even, the explanation offered for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the OTAPL is not satisfactory. Accordingly, the OTAPL and IA are dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman) Judge
M. Panda
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.