9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. 2. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT" for short) by which the petitioners' request for restoration of the petitioners' appeal came to be turned down. The petition arises in the following factual background : 3. The petitioners had pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tax Appeals No.1112/2011 and 1594/2011. Such appeals were dismissed on 3.7.2012. We notice that against the order of the Tribunal refusing to restore the appeals, the petitioners had preferred Tax Appeal No.55/2012 which was also dismissed on the same day. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners deposited sum of Rs. 10 lakh along with interest for interregnum period before the Tribunal sometime in Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt only in July 2012. It is true that in the interregnum period there was no protection against the dismissal of the appeals. In fact, no such protection could have been granted since the appeals were dismissed for want of pre-deposit. However, it cannot be denied that the petitioners were pursuing their remedy for waiver or reduction of pre-deposit requirement which finally the petitioner lost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
