9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case the stay order was passed on 21-3-1986 to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within 8 weeks. But the amount was deposited on 28-8-1996. The present application is filed for restoration of appeal explaining delay. The learned Advocate stated that there are no records available to show that the deposits were actually made or not. We have considered the submissions. We hold that at this length of time no case is made out to condone the delay. Hence this application is dismissed. However, we hereby make it clear that if applicants can trace out records to the effect that the payments are made earlier they are at liberty to file a fresh application. In the premises this application is dismissed and consequently the appeal also st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cannot be condoned. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no error anywhere committed on the record as contemplated under the above conclusion. The reason is it is only a decision on merits after applying the mind of the Tribunal whether this delay is condonable or not. Such a decision rendered on the merits will not come within the ambit of an error apparent on the record . This is very apparent on the facts of the case. Therefore, the application has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. 5. As far as Reference Application is concerned, the applicant stated that the following questions of law may be referred to the Hon ble High Court :- (1) Whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the application for condonati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the prescribed time. There was nothing mentioned before us that this pre-deposit was not made by them within the prescribed time. There is no such evidence also. But this appellant came with an application that they made the pre-deposit after a period of 10 years. Therefore this question is not referable to the Hon ble High Court. 8. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, the question as stated is whether the Tribunal is correct in dismissal of the appeal despite the fact of complying with the pre-deposit. In this connection, it is seen that under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the assessees are given a right of appeal which is prescribed by the condition that if the Tribunal requires them to pay the deposit, such dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
