9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to make pre-deposit - Jurisdiction of BIFR - Whether BIFR has the jurisdiction to direct CESTAT to recall an order which has already been approved by the High Court and Supreme Court and has merged with their orders – Held that:- Following GLOBAL SYNTEX (BHL) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II [2012 (11) TMI 867 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - The BIFR passed the order on reference under Section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - the BIFR is not an appellate authority and as such we fully agree with the learned SDR that the direction contained in the said order of BIFR were not called for and are beyond their jurisdiction and power - The CESTAT is not bound to follow the same - Learned Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab and Haryana. Their appeal was dismissed by Hon ble High Court and the matter was taken up by the appellant to the Hon ble Supreme Court. Hon ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP filed by them on 12.7.2007. 3. It is seen that subsequent to passing of the stay order, the appellant approached the BIFR on 4.4.2003 for sanctioning the scheme for revival of the appellant. As one of the proposal made by the appellant for proposed scheme before BIFR for issuance of direction to the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal and disposal of the same on merits, without insisting on any pre-deposit, and as such, scheme stands sanctioned by BIFR, the appellant moved the present restoration application for recalling the dismissal order on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and issue involved is finality of judicial proceeding which already stands attained at the highest court level. She also drew our attention to the Tribunals decision in the case of Global Syntex (BHL) Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-2012 (281) EL 93 (Tri.-Del) vide which an identical direction of the BIFR were not accepted on the ground that BIFR is not held to be an appellate authority exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Tribunal and inasmuch as the matter in that case had attained finality till Apex Court, the appellant s request for recalling the order was not accepted. 6. After careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, we find that the appellants appeal was rejected i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. 7. Similarly, we find that the Hon ble Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of waiver of interest in the income-tax proceeding which only CBDT could do in terms of income-tax law. This is what actually section 32 provides for. Hon ble Delhi High Court has held that in view of exercise of section 32 BIFR could do so. However, as already observed, the issue in the present case is entirely different and BIFR may have powers to waive any duty or penalty or interest against the assessee with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings. BIFR has sanctioned the scheme, as proposed by the appellant with a proposal to direct the Tribunal to recall the order of dismissal. The question is as to whether BIFR has the jurisdiction to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
