9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interim order before this court pending hearing of his stay application as well as an application to waive pre-deposit pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT)? 2.In the writ petition, when it came up on 24.11.2010, notice was taken by the Central Government Standing Counsel. An interim stay was granted for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, it was extended from time to time. The respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 14.12.2010. 3.Heard the arguments of Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ravichandra Babu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due hardship to any person and subject to such condition the Tribunal may deem fit to impose. But, in the present case, the Tribunal was yet to waive the condition of pre-deposit and no orders were passed on the stay applications. 6.The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel stated that when the stay application was listed on 6.12.2010 before the CESTAT, the Department was ready to contest the case, but however, the counsel for the petitioner sought for a long adjournment and got the matter adjourned to 16.5.2011. It does not show any bonafide on their part. 7.Notwithstanding the same, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.13659 of 2010 and stated that the CESTAT must decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oving the stay application when the matters were listed and getting long adjournment is only the ruse to gain time and to defeat the amount being secured by revenue. The petitioner having moved the CESTAT must seek remedy only before the CESTAT as it has got power to grant an interim order. 11.In the present case, the petitioner has moved the Tribunal with stay application and they cannot use this court as stopgap arrangement for securing an illegal order from this court to postpone the payment. What they could not achieve before the CESTAT, they cannot achieve before this court in an ingenious manner. The power of this court to judicially review the impugned order is extremely limited. This court by the issuance of a direction to the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum." 13.The Supreme Court in Modern Industries Vs. SAIL reported in (2010) 5 SCC 44 held that when a remedy is available under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, the High Court cannot be justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226. 14.Very recently, the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 dealt with SARFAESI Act and DRT Act and in paragraphs 55 and 56, it had held as follows: "55.It is a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
