9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act, 1944, merely since they had chosen to prefer appeals against the order dated 11.7.2014. It is axiomatic that an order of CESTAT, interim or final including an order directing pre deposit, is an operative order. It is subject however to appellate or judicial review scrutiny, by the High Court. The order dated 11.7.2014 considered the merits of the appeals as also the financial distress pleaded by some of the appellants; and that is the reason why the specified quanta of pre deposit were ordered in respect of each of the appellants, though no prima facie case was found in their favour. The pre deposits ordered are not even of the whole of the duty liability assessed in respect of the each of the appellants let alone the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of this order and report of compliance on 15.9.2014; as a condition for waiver of pre deposit and of the balance of duty, penalty and interest confirmed by the impugned adjudication order. 2. Against the order dated 11.7.2014, M/s Rameshwaram Steel Power Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in E/58866/2013 (which was required to pre deposit ₹ 90 lakhs by this order qua stay application No. E/59503/2013), approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Tax Case No. 35/2014. The High Court after recording a finding that there was no illegality in the Order (dated 11.7.2014] and that there was thus no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, granted three months to the said assessee to pre deposit the amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have only recently approached the High Court, their appeals should not be dismissed for default in pre deposit, in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 11.7.2014, till the High Court disposes of the appeals. 5. We do not find any merit in the contentions of those appellants, who argue that their appeals should not be dismissed for failure of pre deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, merely since they had chosen to prefer appeals against the order dated 11.7.2014. It is axiomatic that an order of CESTAT, interim or final including an order directing pre deposit, is an operative order. It is subject however to appellate or judicial review scrutiny, by the High Court. The order dated 11.7.2014 considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appellant has filed a Misc. application seeking modification of the order dated 11.7.2014, pleading financial distress for complying with the pre deposit of ₹ 10 lakhs ordered. Ms. Surbhi, ld. Counsel says that the appellant has now filed the appellant's balance sheet in support of the plea of financial distress. Why proof of financial distress could not be filed along with the stay application No. E/59328/2013 by M/s Salasar Steel Power is not stated. The financial distress aspect was considered in para-12 of the order dated 11.7.2014. In any event, no such miscellaneous application for modification/rectification of the order dated 11.7.2014 is on record today, in the appeal of M/s Salasar Steel Power. 8. In the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
