TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the respondent, a direction was given to deposit only 25% of the amount of the penalty which had been imposed against the said respondent - Applicants claimed that they did not receive the notice - matter was got verified and ascertained from the registry that the notice was duly sent to the address stated on the fact of the Appeal Memoranda - Applicant Firm has not paid a single paisa til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Firm was directed to make a predeposit of 25% of the Central Excise Duty involved in this case. 3. The contention of the Applicants are that the notice of intimation for fixation of the hearing of the Stay Petitions was not served upon the Applicants and they were not aware of the date of hearing and the Stay Petitions had been decided without granting them any hearing for 27.06.2012. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64 crore and the matter was pending since June, 2010, and accordingly, vide the Stay Order dated 27.06.2012, the Applicant Firm was directed to make the predeposit of 25% of the Central Excise Duty involved in this case within eight weeks from the date of that Order, and report compliance 10.09.2012. But the Applicant Firm has not paid a single paisa till date. Therefore, the modification of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority, nor can keep tinkering with the order as and when applications for modification of the order are filed. It is significant to notice that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tribunal does not even have the power to review its orders while exercising its appellate power under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|