2013 (10) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - with reference to appeal No. ST/175/2011 and an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- with reference to appeal No. ST/176/2011, within a period of eight weeks. As no amounts were deposited as per the stay order, both the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance, vide order No. 18.5.2012. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera (Advocate) while arguing ROA application stated that applicant is a small Security Agency and is closed at present and is not in a position to pay the amounts ordered to be deposited. It was his case that appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 49,955/- on 22.4.2013 and further amount of Rs. 49,955/- deposited on 24.8.2013, therefore, more time may be granted for payment of balance amount in installments or else, a show cause notice should have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n-compliance pending the decision in the writ petition. The facts of that case before the High Court were different than the facts of this case. However, granting of eight week's time to the present appellant for making deposits and fixing of a date for reporting compliance was a sufficient notice to make the deposits or approach the CESTAT bench with any difficulty as to why the pre-deposits cannot be made. Appellant could also had the liberty to approach the Bench asking for any modification or extension of time. On the same issue, the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court, in the case of Sattar Habib Hamdani vs. UOI (supra) in Para 4 has held as follows:-             4. The order passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It has been rightly pointed out by the learned A.R. appearing for Revenue that more than one year has passed from the stay order dated 09.3.2012 and if the appellant was sincere then he should have made the entire pre-deposit in instalments himself and could have come with a stronger case for restoration of his appeals. Otherwise also, the right course for the appellant would have been to file an appeal against the dismissal order dated 18.5.2012 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 (supra) and Hanila Era Textiles Limited vs. UOI (supra), respectively. 6. In view of the above observations, application for Restoration .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X