9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring as the order of the Tribunal has already been acted upon. - applicants have not deposited the amount in terms of the stay order. In other words, the Revenue has recovered the amount by initiating the recovery proceedings under the law. Thus, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate that the instant applications were filed in respect of change of situation would be against the applicants. - Restoration denied. - Application Nos. E/ROA/16178,16179/2014, Appeal Nos. E/1161,1162,/2005 - Order No. M/11034-11035/2015 - Dated:- 11-6-2015 - P K Das, Member (J) And P M Saleem, Member (T), JJ. For the Appellants : Shri Devan Parikh, Senior Adv. H Shah, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Jitesh Nagori, AR ORDER Per Mr. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and sum of ₹ 85,51,000/- and earlier deposited amount of ₹ 16,78,400/-, in total a sum of ₹ 1,02,29,400/- was deposited in the Government fund. So, the appellant complied the stay order and therefore, appeals should be restored in its original numbers. It is submitted that the delay in compliance of the stay order is due to acute financial crisis of the appellant, attachment of the property and auction by the department. There is no negligence and/ or inaction on the part of the applicants for compliance of the stay order. It is submitted that unless the appeals are not restored, the appellants would be deprived of right to appeal as provided under the statute. He relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Choksi Silk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uri Print respectively. By stay order dated 12.3.2007, the applicants were directed to pre-deposit ₹ 50 Lacs each for hearing the appeals. By Order No. A/1320-1321/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 06.06.2007, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the stay order. The applicants filed application. No. E/ROA/1811-1812/2011 for restoration of the appeals dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order on the ground that applicants had no means to deposit the amount. It is also contended that the Revenue officers had attached the property valued about ₹ 60 Lakh of the appellant, which can be considered as compliance of the stay order. By Order No. M/264-265/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 18.01.2012, the Tribunal dismissed the application as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auction the properties attached at the earliest but not later then three months from the date of order. The learned Senior Advocate contended that after the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Revenue had auctioned the attached property in sum of ₹ 81,51,000/- and certificate of sale of immovable property issued to the applicants dated 05.09.2014. The applicants earlier deposited a sum of ₹ 16,78,400/-. Thus, the applicants deposited a total amount of ₹ 1,02,29,400/-which may be recorded as compliance of the stay order and the appeals may be restored in its original numbers. 7. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate. In our considered view, after the dismissal of the appeals by order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant for complying the stay order. For the proper appreciation of the case, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court by judgment dated 23.08.2012 are reproduced below:- 5.1 Looking at it from another angle, the present petition came to be filed after dismissal of restoration application. For period from 2007 to 2011, the petitioners remained inactive and indolent. Not only that, as stated above, they did not pursue the statutory appeal which they had filed to challenge the orders in question. The competent authority of the Excise Department attached the properly on 23.08.2011. Only thereafter the petitioners again woke up from their slumber and filed restoration application. No explanation has been coming forth in respect of four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to rid off the obligations arising from orders of court of law, it amounts to abuse of process of law. The conduct of the petitioners showed that they acted in that fashion and abused the process of law by approaching court/forums at their own convenience using the process to avoid the consequences of the orders of the competent authorities. It was far from bonafide. 10. The learned Senior Advocate cited several decisions during the course of hearing. None of the case laws is applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah (supra) and Priya Dyers (supra) the Hon'ble Courts had taken a view of belated compliance of requirement of pre-deposit. In the case of Choksi Silk Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
