9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Application No. 6693 of 2008 being admittedly violated by the applicants. The operative part of that order dated 24-6-2008 read as under : 11. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the petitioners shall deposit a total amount of ₹ 44 lacs including the amount of ₹ 12,78,000/- lacs already deposited by the petitioners earlier. We further direct that the remaining amount of ₹ 26,22,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioners in four equal monthly installments. The first installment shall be paid by 7-7-2008 and the subsequent installments shall be paid on the 7th day of each succeeding months. The petitioners shall file the revised undertaking on the aforesaid basis within one week from today. After the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verse previous order dated 24-6-2008 of the Division Bench (Coram : Honourable Mr. Justice M.S. Shah, as His Lordship then was and D.H. Waghela, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 6693 of 2008. 3. Arguing the application for further indulgence and an order to restore the appeals already dismissed by the CESTAT about 3 years ago, it was submitted by learned counsel, Mr. S.N. Thakkar, that the applicants did not claim any relief as a matter of right but the Court may be inclined to consider the fact that, by now, the amount required to be deposited by way of pre-deposit was already paid and the appeals of the applicants were required to be heard and decided on merits. He further submitted that the Court may grant such fresh indulgence on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal that they were dismissing on the ground that the penalty amount was not deposited as directed, as a composite appeal inasmuch as the same was for setting aside the penalty and also for setting aside the order of confiscation of the said vessel. It is also to be appreciated that under the order in question redemption fine was ordered to the extent of ₹ 1,75,000/- in respect of the aforesaid vessel. It is apparent, therefore, that the entire composite appeal could not have been dismissed on the mere ground that there was a failure in depositing the penalty amount as ordered. It would seem that this aspect was not noticed by the learned Members of the Tribunal, when the order dismissing the appeal was passed. This is, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue, in absence of any stay operating in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. R.J. Oza, appearing for the opponents vehemently objected to grant of any relief or further indulgence to the applicants in view of the facts that the alleged financial difficulty of the applicants was nowhere proved or even substantiated and recovery pursuant to Order-in-Original dated 30th October, 2006 was delayed by pendency of one or the other litigation initiated by the applicants according to their convenience. He pointed out that Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 93,64,000/- and further liability of equal amount by way of penalty and interest thereon had arisen and crystallized against the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
