9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order rejecting the appellant application for modification is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it would revive the appellant’s application for modification which is not maintainable, for lack of jurisdiction to review, conferred on the appellate authority. The order dated 07.08.2012 (rejecting the appeals), is also unassailable since the appellant failed to comply with the order dated 06.07.2011, directing deposit of the specified amount as the condition for grant of waiver of pre-deposit. Thus appeal dismissed. - 3341-3342, 3601-3602 of 2012 - 55872-55875/2013-EX(PB) - Dated:- 19-3-2013 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate For the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication order, the appellant preferred an appeal alongwith an application for stay. By the order dated 06.07.2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to remit Rs. 3 lakhs while waiving the balance liability, exercising discretion under the 1st proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellant sought modification of the condition imposed. This request was rejected by the order dated 13.07.2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed that the amount should be deposited within the time now stipulated. As the appellant failed to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 06.07.2011, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the order dated 06.11.2011 and Section 35F of the Act. 5. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant s application for modification, whether passed after notice and opportunity to the appellant or otherwise, is unassailable. If the order dated 13.07.2012 (rejecting the appellant application for modification) is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it would revive the appellant s application for modification which is not maintainable, for lack of jurisdiction to review, conferred on the appellate authority. The order dated 07.08.2012 (rejecting the appeals), is also unassailable since the appellant failed to comply with the order dated 06.07.2011, directing deposit of the specified amount as the condition for grant of waiver of pre-deposit. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, we find no error either in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
