9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application so as to keep their interest alive - no justifiable reasons to recall the order of the dismissal - E/61-67/2005 - 146-152/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 7-2-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri I. Baig, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants and Shri I. Baig, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue in support of the restoration of applications, we find that the Tribunal vide stay order No. 126-132/05-NB-A dated 7-2-05 directed the applicants M/s. Global Syntex (BHL) Ltd. to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It stands recorded in para 13(c) of the said order of the BIFR as under :- The company would deposit Rs. 25.00 lakh with Excise Department out of the direction of 25% by CESTAT, within two weeks. In the interest of revival of the company, CSTAT is directed to consider hearing the company s appeal on deposit of Rs. 25.00 lakh. 5. In view of the above, he submits that in terms of direction of BIFR, they deposited the amount of Rs. 25 lakh and as such, their appeals be restored. 6. Countering the arguments, learned SDR submits that BIFR is not an appellate authority over the Tribunal, such directions made by the BIFR are beyond their jurisdiction and power. He submits that the Tribunal is not bound to follow the above direction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by BIFR that the Tribunal directed 25% of the duty confirmed are factually incorrect. The direction was to deposit 25 lakhs by BIFR. In any case, BIFR directed the applicants to deposit 25 lakhs within a period of two weeks from the date of passing order. The deposit of the same stands made after more than two and half months. 9. When viewed independently, we find that the stay order as also subsequent dismissal order have not been challenged by the appellants before any higher appellate forum and there was no direction by higher appellate form to recall the order of dismissal of the appeals. The deposit stands made by the appellants after a gap of five years. From the date of passing the stay order, no efforts made to deposit any amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
