9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals - the right course for the appellant would have been to file an appeal against the dismissal order passed by CESTAT which was correctly passed in view of the law laid down by Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court in the case of Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI [1989 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] and Hanila Era Textiles Ltd vs. UOI - [2010 (9) TMI 202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - application for Restoration of Appeals filed by the appellant was rejected. - Appeal No. : ST/175 & 176 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2013 - MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For the Appellant: Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Manoj Kutty, A.R. ORDER Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This restoration application has been moved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in his efforts to make the deposit, he himself could have paid the entire pre-deposit ordered and come out with a stronger case for restoration of appeals. He relied upon the following case laws to support that appeals of the appellant were correctly dismissed for non-compliance:- (a) Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI [1992 (61) ELT 220 (Guj.)] (b) Hanila Era Textiles Ltd vs. UOI - [2010 (259) ELT 24 (Bom, upheld by Supreme Court by its order dated 29.4.2011 [2011 (270) ELT A156 (SC)] 4. Heard both sides on ROA application in detail and perused the case records. Appellant has mainly relied upon the judgment of Kolkatta High Court in the case of CCE Kolkata -II vs. Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Limited (supra) on the ground that before dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court by dismissing the appeal filed by Hanila Era Textiles Limited. In Para -22 of the judgment dated 21.09.2010, the Bombay High Court held as follows:- 22. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appellant was guilty of keeping the petition pending for seven months and not obtaining appropriate orders from the writ Court. It was not obligatory on the Tribunal to grant further time for compliance of order of pre-deposit without there being any such request from the appellant before expiry of the time already fixed by it. The appeal was, thus, rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. 5. In the present appeals also appellant did not ask for any extension of time or modification of stay order after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
