9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posit of this amount within the stipulated period, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of the duty demand interest and penalty for compliance with the provisions of section 35 F would stand waived and recovery thereof stayed. Against this order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal before Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur and Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 24th June, 2014 refused to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Against this order of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court, the appellant filed an SLP before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 30th June, 2014 dismissed the SLP and granted four weeks time for compliance with the directors of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Apex Court by filing an SLP. The Apex Court vide order dated 30th June, 2014 while dismissing the SLP has granted only another four weeks time from the date of the order. Once the Tribunal's order has been upheld by the High Court, the Tribunals order merges with the High Courts order and since the SLP against the High Courts has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, in view of this position, the Tribunal cannot interfere with its earlier order dated 03.06.2014. 6. At this stage, Shri G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate, the ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant cited judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2011 (269) ELT 56 (Del) wherein Hon'ble Delhi Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 5.00 Crores on each of these three persons and as such, this is not an order of ordering pre-deposit for compliance with the provisions of section 35F. From the order dated 23.03.2011 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it appears that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in respect of appeal filed against Tribunal's final order had ordered deposit of balance amount of penalty of Rs. 3.00 Crores and SLP to Apex Court against this order had been dismissed. Dismissal of SLP by Apex Court does not result in the merger of the order impugned with the Apex Court order. It is in the background of these facts that Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 22.03.2011 allowed instalment facility. The facts of this case are totally different. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 (316) ELT 406 (All.) 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 and extend the period of pre-deposit. 10. The Misc. Application for modification is, therefore, dismissed. Since the appellant have not complied with the directions of Tribunal's order which has been upheld by the judgement of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court and the judgment of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High court stands affirmed by the Apex Court, the appeal is also dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 35F. (Dictated & Pronounced in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
