9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, the stay petition should be heard afresh. 2. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri B.L. Narsimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Sweta Bector, ld. DR for the Revenue. It is seen that after passing of final order dismissing the appeal, the appellant had moved restoration application before the Tribunal. The said restoration application was also rejected by the Tribunal vide its Misc Order No.629/05-Ex dated 5.12.2005. It is further seen that during pendency of appeal before the Tribunal or after dismissal of the matter, the order was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower to waive interest only vests with the CBDT. As such, he submits that the provisions of section 32 are wide enough to confer jurisdiction on the BIFR to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances, while sanctioning the scheme. As such, he submits that inasmuch as scheme stands sanctioned by BIFR while accepting the appellant's prayer directing the Tribunal for recalling the order of dismissal and the same should be recalled. 5. Countering the arguments, Ms. Sweta Bector, ld. DR submits that it is not the case of simpliciter exercise of jurisdiction provided under section 32 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and issue involved is finality of judicial proceeding which already stands attained at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some other law. However, we find that in the present case it is not a question of sanctioning against any other law etc. The issue involved in the present case is related to the judicial hierarchy system being followed in the country. When order passed by the Tribunal gets merged with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and subsequently with the order of Supreme Court, to recall such final order passed by the Tribunal which already stands merged with the higher court, would amount to upsetting the order of Hon'ble High Court as also Supreme Court which the Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to do 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 onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subject of challenge before BIFR, though same may be one of the factors to be considered by them while passing the order on reference. We also note that 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 reproduced above were not called for and are beyond their jurisdiction and power. The CESTAT is not bound to follow the same. Learned Advocate has not been able to show as to how BIFR is exercising as an appellate authority over the Tribunal and is directing to recall the order. 8. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no reason to recall the final order No. 723/05-Ex dated 31.8.2005. Accordingly, restoration application filed by the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
