9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Supreme Court and has merged with their orders – Held that:- order of the BIFR merely records that the petitioner had requested the BIFR for issuing the said directions to the CESTAT. The order does not grant the petitioner’s request. There is nothing on record that indicates that the BIFR had granted the request. In other words there is nothing on record to suggest that the BIFR directed the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged by the petitioner by filing CEA No. 144 of 2006. The said CEA was dismissed by an order and judgement dated 30.01.2007. The Division Bench of this Court held that the order of the CESTAT did not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the petitioner had been able to delay compliance of the order dated 23.06.2005 directing it to deposit the amount payable. The petition for special leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that indicates that the BIFR had granted the request. In other words there is nothing on record to suggest that the BIFR directed the CESTAT in terms of the request of the petitioner. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. 4. The order sought to be recalled attained finality by virtue of the appeal against the said order having been dismissed by the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
