9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imply directs that the “appellants” to deposit an amount of ₹ 87,44,929/- within four weeks and also clarifies that this order has imposed pre-condition in respect of all these applicants. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajinder Gaur Vs. CCE reported in [2013 (6) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in the background of the fact that while the main appellant had been directed to make pre-deposit with the observation that if it was made, other co-appellants were not required to make pre-deposits and there was no direction given that if the main appellant defaulted, other appellants would also be considered as defaulters, the appeals of the other appellants cannot be dismissed for non-compliance and that without dealing with the individual a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum of pre-deposit to be made by the other appellants. It has therefore to be inferred that direction for pre-deposit of ₹ 87,44,929/- was only for M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. Since the above directed amount was not deposited by M/s. Puneet Exports Inc, the Tribunal vide order dated 2.9.2014 dismissed the appeal of M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. along with the appeals of three appellants - M/s. Century Knitters (India) Ltd., M/s. Natraj Fabrics and M/s. Nimisha Knits for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. 2. Against the above order of the Tribunal dated 2.9.2014, the three appellants - M/s. Century Knitters (India) Ltd., M/s. Natraj Fabrics and M/s. Nimisha Knits filed appeals before the Hon ble Pun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Delhi) in the background of the fact that while the main appellant had been directed to make pre-deposit with the observation that if it was made, other co-appellants were not required to make pre-deposits and there was no direction given that if the main appellant defaulted, other appellants would also be considered as defaulters, the appeals of the other appellants cannot be dismissed for non-compliance and that without dealing with the individual appellant s case for stay, the Tribunal ought not to have mechanically assumed default and dismissed their appeals. In our view, the order dated 13.03.2013 with regard to these appellants requires modification as not only it is an ex parte order passed without hearing them but there are also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
