9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves service of Rule for the respondents. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, i.e. Choksi Silk Mils and one of its partners, have challenged the orders dated 09.08.2007, 15.10.2007, 20.11.2007 and 27.03.2008 (Annexures A, B, C and H respectively) of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Appeal Nos.E/643 and 644 of 2007 and the stay applications made therein. 3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Respondent No.3 passed an order-in-original confirming the demand of Cenvat credit of ₹ 93,64,004/- and also imposed penalty of an equal amount. The said order dated 30.10.2006 also demanded intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal by application dated 19.03.2008 to grant some more time for reporting compliance. It appears that the petitioners requested the Tribunal to defer the hearing for some more time, because the M.C.A. filed before this Court for extension of time limit was fixed for hearing on 28.03.2008. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 27.03.2008 on the ground of non-compliance of the pre-deposit order. Thus, that M.C.A. came to be disposed of by this Court on 15.04.2008 on the ground that the application had become infructuous. The application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the concerned orders in a substantive writ petition. 5. The petitioners have, now, moved this Court with the present petition submitting that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on account of the financial difficulties that the petitioners were not in a position to comply with the pre-deposit order and that, for the delay in complying with the pre-deposit order, the petitioners are prepared to deposit some additional amount, which may be treated as deposit towards the disputed liability. 9. In view of the above submissions, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the petitioners are directed to deposit additional sum of ₹ 4 lacs over and above the amount of ₹ 40 lacs as stipulated in the pre-deposit order of the Tribunal. 10. Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that since the petitioners are required to pay the remaining sum of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
