2009 (4) TMI 569 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Review application filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. Misc. applications for modification of stay order.
3. Consideration of applications in view of the Apex Court's order.
4. Withdrawal of appearance by the counsel.
5. Adjournment of the matter.

Analysis:

1. The appellants, represented by Shri Satish Bhalla and Smt. Sangita Bhalla, prayed for time as a review application was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27-4-09. Both parties acknowledged an order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30-3-2009, extending the time for pre-deposit by four weeks. The appellants submitted a zerox copy of the order for certification. The Tribunal noted the situation and allowed the appellants time to produce a certified copy of the order and seek remedy of review before the Apex Court.

2. Three Misc. applications were filed by the appellants after the matter was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These applications sought modification of the stay order passed earlier. The appellants requested the waiver of pre-deposit and the passing of a suitable stay order. The Tribunal observed that the applications could not be considered in light of the Apex Court's order but granted the appellants time to produce the certified copy of the order and pursue the review remedy.

3. Despite the filing of three Misc. applications, the Tribunal was constrained by the Apex Court's order of 30-3-2009. The appellants were granted one week to produce the certified copy of the order and pursue the review before the Apex Court. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the limitations imposed by the Apex Court's order.

4. During the hearing, it was noted that Shri B.L. Narsimhan, the counsel who appeared in the cases when the stay order was passed, withdrew his appearance due to certain difficulties. He filed a memo of withdrawal, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ethical standards in the legal profession and expected voluntary disclosure of withdrawal instructions when a matter is listed before the Court.

5. In light of the factual observations and the counsel's withdrawal of appearance, the Tribunal decided to adjourn the matter for one week. The registry was directed to list the matter for further proceedings on 8-5-2009. Both parties were notified of the adjournment, and the order was dictated in the open Court for transparency and record-keeping purposes.