9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 895 - HC - Central ExciseRestoration of Applications Impact of order of BIFR on order of CESTAT directing to make pre-deposit - Jurisdiction of BIFR - Whether BIFR has the jurisdiction to direct CESTAT to recall an order which has already been approved by the High Court and Supreme Court and has merged with their orders Held that - order of the BIFR merely records that the petitioner had requested the BIFR for issuing the said directions to the CESTAT. The order does not grant the petitioner s request. There is nothing on record that indicates that the BIFR had granted the request. In other words there is nothing on record to suggest that the BIFR directed the CESTAT in terms of the request of the petitioner. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 13.08.2013. 2. Compliance with the order dated 23.06.2005 directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of duty. 3. Challenge of the order dated 31.08.2005 by filing CEA No. 144 of 2006. 4. Dismissal of CEA No. 144 of 2006 by the Division Bench of the High Court. 5. Dismissal of the petition for special leave by the Supreme Court dated 12.07.2007. 6. Sanction of a scheme by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in respect of the petitioner. 7. Contention of the petitioner regarding directions from BIFR to CESTAT for restoration of appeal without pre-deposit of dues. 8. Lack of evidence to support the contention of the petitioner regarding BIFR's directions to CESTAT. 9. Finality of the order sought to be recalled due to dismissal of appeals by the Division Bench and Supreme Court. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an appeal against the order of the CESTAT dated 13.08.2013, which dismissed the petitioner's application for recalling the order of 31.08.2005. The petitioner's appeal was initially dismissed for non-compliance with the order dated 23.06.2005, directing the deposit of the entire duty amount. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the CESTAT's order, stating that the petitioner delayed compliance with the deposit directive. 2. Following the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench, the petitioner filed CEA No. 144 of 2006, which was also dismissed on 30.01.2007. The Supreme Court later dismissed the petition for special leave against this order on 12.07.2007, thereby affirming the finality of the order to be recalled. 3. Subsequently, the BIFR sanctioned a scheme for the petitioner, claiming that the BIFR directed CESTAT to restore the appeal without requiring any pre-deposit of dues and exempting the petitioner from interest or penalty payments. However, the court noted that the BIFR's order only recorded the petitioner's request without evidence of granting the request. Consequently, the lack of documented direction from BIFR to CESTAT led to the dismissal of the appeal on this ground. 4. The judgment emphasized the finality of the order sought to be recalled due to the dismissal of appeals by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court. As a result, the appeal against the CESTAT's order dated 13.08.2013 was dismissed by the High Court. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues and the court's reasoning behind dismissing the appeal.
|
