9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst whom there were only penalty orders. According to him, the application for pre-deposit and waiver filed by the present appellants had not even been considered by CESTAT in the first round, i.e., on 13.10.2008. All the four appellants had filed appeals before CESTAT. The said Tribunal had disposed of all the applications by a common order dated 13.10.2008. Three of the parties including the present appellants had filed appeals before the Allahabad High Court in which they did not make any averment that their applications had not been disposed of on merits. Similarly, even before the Supreme Court, they did not make any such averment. In fact before the Supreme Court the plea taken was a joint plea on behalf of the four appellants befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Custom Appeal Nos. 538/2008, 539/2008, 540/2008 and 557/2008. The said appeals had been filed by M/s Novamet Industries, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla, Shri Satish Bhalla and Shri Vinay Jain, respectively. It is an admitted position that Smt Sangeeta Bhalla is the wife of Shri Satish Bhalla and that Smt Sangeeta Bhalla is also a partner in the firm - M/s Novamet Industries along with Shri Vinay Jain. All the four said persons had filed the above appeals being aggrieved by the order-in-original No 14/Commissioner/Noida/2008 dated 19.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Noida. 2. By virtue of the impugned order dated 21.05.2009, the appeals filed, inter alia, by the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duties and penalties shall stand waived and the recovery thereof shall be stayed. Compliance to be reported on 19.11.08." 5. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by CESTAT, the appellants herein, namely, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla and Shri Satish Bhalla along with the firm M/s Novamet Industries filed a common appeal being Central, Excise and Customs Appeal No 9/2009 before the Allahabad High Court. The appeal itself indicated that it was directed against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi in stay application Nos C/Stay/1413-1415/2008 and 1554/2008-CU in Appeal No C/538-540, 557/2008-CU[BR], titled M/s Novamet Industries and others vs. Commissioner, Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and applicable law. With the aforesaid modification/direction this appeal stands disposed of." 6. Still being aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the appellants herein, namely, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla and Shri Satish Bhalla along with the firm M/s Novamet Industries filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 6344/2009 in respect of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CECA No.9/2009. The Special Leave Petition came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 30.03.2009 when the Supreme Court pleased to dismiss the same. However, the Supreme Court granted some time for making the pre-deposit. The Supreme Court's order and direction i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made, dismissed all the four appeals including that of the appellants herein. 10. Before us, Mr Rawal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the requirement of pre-deposit of duties was only in respect of the firm, i.e., M/s Novamet Industries and the said direction of making the pre-deposit had no application to the case of the appellants against whom there were only penalty orders. According to him, the application for pre-deposit and waiver filed by the present appellants had not even been considered by CESTAT in the first round, i.e., on 13.10.2008. However, Mr Rawal was unable to give a satisfactory answer to the question - "if that were to be so, then why did the appellants move the Allah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be stayed. It is obvious that on making the payment of the pre-deposit amount of duties, the penalties which were imposed on all the four appellants including the present appellants would have been stayed. Therefore, the plea taken by Mr Rawal that appellants' applications were not considered by CESTAT is clearly untenable. 12. In any event, after the clear direction given by the Supreme Court by virtue of its order dated 30.03.2009, there can be no debate on the issue. The Supreme Court had made it clear that if the pre-deposit is not made within the extended period, it would open to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal has examined the matter and the pre-deposit not having been made, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
