9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that it is the Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE vs. Lindt Exports reported in [2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] which would be applicable and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify its order dated 03.06.2014, which in our view, stands merged with the judgment of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a recent judgement dated 12.11.2014 in case of Kissan Gramudyog Sansthan vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in [Kissan Gramudyog Sansthan] has held that once the appeal against Tribunal's stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is dismissed by a High Court, the Tribunal's stay order mergers with the High Courts order and the Tribunal cannot modify its stay order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Misc. Application is that while the stay order mentions that the appeal arises out of order in appeal No.COMMR/CEX/IND/12-13 dated 29.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, Indore , the appeal was filed against order in Original and not order in appeal. This Misc. Application for rectification of this mistake apparent from record is allowed. Accordingly, the words Order in Appeal at the top of Stay Order should be read as Order in Original . 3. The second Misc. Application which has been filed on 23rd July 2014 prays for allowing the appellant to deposit the directed amount in 12 equal monthly instalments. 4. Heard Shri G.L Rawal, Senior Advocate and Shri Rohit Choudhary, Advocate, the learned Counsels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty from the appellant in instalments. Shri Rawal, accordingly, pleaded that notwithstanding the dismissal of SLP by the Apex Court against the High Court's order dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal can allow the appellant to deposit the directed amount in instalments. In this regard he also cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of RK Texcon (India) vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2000 (122) ELT 485(Tribunal) and also in the case of Sigma Diagnostics P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-II reported in 2009 (236) ELT 598 (Tri.Admd.) wherein considering the appellants willingness to pay the directed amount for compliance with the provisions of section 35 F the Tribunal had permitted the deposit of the amount in instalments. 7. Coming fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg vs. CCE, Delhi reported in 2011 (269) ELT 56 (Del.) has no application to this case. 8. Similarly, in the other cases - Sigma Diagnostics P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-II reported in 2009 (236) ELT 598 (Tri.Admd.), R K Texcon (India) vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2000 (122) ELT 485(Tribunal) where the Tribunal had permitted the appellant to deposit the directed amount under section 35 F In instalments, there was no challenge to the Tribunal's order before High Courts. 9. In this case, the Tribunal's order directing the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 12.00 Crores within a period of four weeks had been upheld by Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court and an SLP against the Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
