9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vention of Section 35F of the Central Excise Actand there is no merit in the request of the restoration of the appeal - against assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 238 of 2010 - Final Order No. A/460/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 20-4-2012 - Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Present Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Present Shri Nagesh Pathak, DR for the respondent. Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke: (Oral) This is an application of M/s Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of appeal dismissed on account of non compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Vide order in original No. 9-10/2009 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present petitioner were dismissed due to non-compliance of the order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the order of deposit was against the main appellant who has failed to comply. This however, cannot be taken as a reason to deprive the applicant of his right to challenge the impugned order-in-appeal. Thus, he has pressed for restoration of his appeal as well as stay application. 6. Sh. Nagesh Pathak, ld. AR has opposed the application. He submits that the stay application of the appellant was disposed of along with applications of the main appellant vide common order dated 13.9.2011 directing the main appellant to deposit Rs.15 croers within twelve weeks. It was fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No.8628/2011 12.12.2011 refused to interfere with the order of pre-deposti of Rs.15 crores. However, the appellant was permitted to deposit the amount in eight equal weekly installment. The first installment was to be paid on or before 23.12.2011. Admittedly, the main appellant has failed to comply with the condition of deposit of Rs.15 crores as modified by the Ho ble High court. It is not the case of the petitioner (Mooongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd.) that on account of failure of the main appellant to comply with the order of deposit, he has deposited Rs.25 lakhs imposed upon him . Since the petitioner has failed to comply with the order of deposit, his appeal has been rightly dismissed for contravention of Section 35F of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
