9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay application No. E/S/1838/07 in Appeal No. E/1572/07. It is stated that the application has been filed in accordance with the order of the Hon ble Bombay High Court dated 4-9-2008 in Writ Petition No. 5641 of 2008. 2. The ld. advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that number of stay applications were disposed of vide order dated 19-3-2008 by this Tribunal whereby the applicants in almost all the cases could avail complete waiver of pre-deposit except the present applicants. It is his further contention that the applicants case is similar to the case of other applicants, and therefore, there was no justification for giving differential treatment to the applicants case in relation to the stay order. He further submitted that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this stage. 4. Under order dated 19-3-2008, the Tribunal while recording the reasons for rejection of stay to the applicants had directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,72,657/- within four weeks. The applicants thereafter filed an application for modification of the stay order being No. 933/08. After hearing the ld. advocate for the applicants and the ld. DR for the Respondents, the Tribunal vide its order dated 23-5-08 rejected the said modification application. 5. It is pertinent to note that the point of violation of natural justice was specifically raised in the earlier modification application and was dealt with by this Tribunal under order dated 23-5-2008, along with other issues which were sought to be raised therein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th law and shall make order thereon as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of six weeks from the date of the application. (ii) Till the Tribunal decides the application to be filed by the petitioner as per this order, the Tribunal shall not dismiss the appeal of the petitioner for non compliance of order dated 23-5-2008. (iii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 6. As already stated above, it is the contention on behalf of the applicants that in terms of the direction by the Bombay High Court, this Tribunal has to decide the stay application on the basis of the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad. With re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... communicated to the appellants. The records however, disclose that the withdrawal of appearance by the advocate was on the ground that there was no communication between the advocate and the appellants. In other words, it was on account of lack of instructions from the appellants that the advocate had withdrawn his appearance from the matter before the lower authority. It is also an undisputed tact that the appellants had not even bothered to file reply to the show cause notice. It is true that it is sought to be contended that in order to file the reply, the appellants required certain documents and therefore, in the absence of the documents the appellants could not file the reply, it is, however, not known as to what efforts were made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as directed the petitioner to deposit complete duty amount. In the background of above representation to the Hon ble High Court, the matter came to be disposed of. In any case, the High Court has directed that the Tribunal shall consider the application in accordance with law and shall pass the order accordingly. The direction cannot be construed to mean that irrespective of difference in the facts between the case of M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. and the case in hand, the Tribunal has to apply the ruling in M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. to the case in hand. Besides, unless a prima facie case is made out for grant of stay of the order, the question of giving any such relief does not arise. 9. In our considered opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the failure on the part of the appellants to put forth their defence and the authority having perused the material on record and on the basis of such material, having arrived at the finding about the liability of the appellants, we do not find the facts in that regard to be similar to those of M/s. Bhagwati Steelcast Ltd. In any case, no new facts as such have been brought on record which could justify the modification of the order passed by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion. Even considering the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. case, it would not help the applicants to insist for reduction in the deposit amount to 1/4th of the amount demanded. In Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. the Tribunal had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
