9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings before the Tribunal. The order passed by the High Court is extracted below :- In WP. 17703 of 2001 M/S. HARIKRISHNA POLYMERS (P) LTD., PETITIONER REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, R. NARAYANAMOORTHY V. (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SHASTRI BHAVAN ANNEXE, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI. RESPONDENT 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II COMMISSIONERATE, 47, MHU COMPLEX, ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI 35 Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Order No. 250/2001(E/Stay/433/2000 in Appeal No. E. 873/2001), dt. 8-5-2001 (pronounced in Court on 6-7-2001) pending disposal of WP No. 17703 of 2001. ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. K. Jayachandran, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. J. Madhanagopal Rao, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel, on behalf of the respondent, the Court made th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance on 5-10-2001. In the meantime, the appellants had already filed a Writ Petition before the Hon ble High Court and had obtained Interim Stay order on all the proceedings before the CEGAT. The Hon ble High Court has already directed the Tribunal to remit the records for consideration of their Writ Petition pending before them. Subsequent order of dismissal under Section 35F was as a result of the Interim order of the Stay order not having been placed before the Tribunal at the time when the matter was listed for reporting compliance. Therefore, as the matter has already been stayed by the Hon ble High Court, the dismissal order could not have been passed and as a result, I am of the considered opinion that the order of dismissal under Section 35F passed by Final Order Nos. 1755 to 1758/2001, dated 6-10-2001 is required to be recalled and appeals restored to its original numbers and the records are required to be remitted to the High Court in terms of the High Court s direction. Hence, the Registry is directed to act accordingly by remitting the records along with this order of the restroration of the appeals. Ordered accordingly. Copy of this order may be furnished to me by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds duty and an amount of Rs. 76,27,950/- towards penalty on various functionaries of the appellant-company was ordered to be waived and its recovery stayed. 11. On 5-10-2001, when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants including Shri T. Ramesh, Counsel for the appellants nor was there any report of compliance. The ld. DR had prayed for dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for non compliance as the appellants had not pre-deposited the said amount. After considering the prayer of the ld. DR, we noticed that there was clear direction to the appellants to pre deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and to report compliance on 5-10-2001. It was also made clear that if they did not pre deposit the said amount, then the appeals shall be dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. As the appellants and their Counsel were not present to report compliance, all these appeals have been dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act by this Bench. The above order was recorded by my ld. Brother, Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial) which was concurred by me. 12. It was after the dismissal of the appeals on 5-10-2001, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, I desired to know whether they have got any TR-6 challan as proof of having deposited a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- including Rs. 10,47,589/- already paid by them and adjusted by the ld. Commissioner. 14. It is my humble view that the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has not directed us to recall the Final Order Nos. 1755-1758/01, dated 5-10-2001 by which we had dismissed their appeal for non deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 15. During the course of dictation of separate order by me in the open Court, learned Counsel, Shri T. Ramesh has interrupted me by threatening that the order dictated by me may lead to contempt of the Hon ble High Court. Here, I would like to clarify that I have got highest respects for the Hon ble High Court under whose superintendence and control, all the Tribunal in their respective jurisdiction are working. I am of the humble opinion that order of the Hon ble High Court is for interim stay of the operation of the Order No. 250/2001 (E/St/433/2000 in Appeal No. E/873/2001, dated 8-5-2001) pronounced in the open Court by us on 6-7-2001 asking the appellant-company to pre deposit a further sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by 5-10-2001. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oper. The Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon ble President to refer it to the 3rd Member. Sd/-Jeet Ram Kait,Member (T) Sd/-S.L. Peeran, Member (J) 17. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - In view of my ld. Brother s observation in the above order, I wish to reiterate my view that the stay order in this case has been stayed by Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras by WP Miscellaneous Petition No. 17703/2001 and all further proceedings in this case have been stayed. Registry has received the Writ of Certiorari Order Nisi to produce and or to appear in the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the said matter vide their order dated 9-10-2001. It is seen that the matter had been listed for reporting compliance on the stay order on 5-10-2001 on which date the Hon ble High Court s stay order was in force. Therefore, the order of dismissal for non-deposit under Section 35F of the Act could not have been passed and such an order is a nullity hence it requires to be recalled as on the said day the Hon ble High Court s order was in existence. Therefore, in this context, Ld. Counsel made submission that the dismissal of the present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
