9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us installments, the petitioners had deposited the said sum of Rs. 4 lacs. Despite such deposits, the Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that the amount was not deposited within the time permitted nor any extension was sought from the Tribunal. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached this Court. The petitioners had deposited the amount of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short). 3. The petitioner had taken CENVAT credit of a sum of Rs. 20,29,601/- on unprocessed fabrics procured from the weavers and manufactures of such fabrics. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, however, issued a show cause notice on 3-9-2008 as to why such credit should not be recovered on the ground that the petitioners had wrongly availed of such CENVAT cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to deposit sum of Rs. 4 lacs, upon which, the Commissioner was to hear the appeals on merits. On 3-12-2010 since the petitioners had failed to deposit such sum, the Commissioner rejected the appeals. 6. It is not in dispute that some time in March, 2011 in various installments, the petitioners had deposited the said sum of Rs. 4 lacs. Despite such deposits, the Tribunal by the impugned order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
