9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t granted further time of one month to comply with the stay order. They then filed SLP before the Supreme Court which vide order dated 31.10.2013 dismissed the SLP but allowed six weeks further time to make the deposit ordered by CESTAT. Modificaiton application was also dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 06.01.2014. b) The appellants have now sought restoration of appeal on the ground that having not succeeded even at the level of Supreme Court, they have now managed to deposit the amount as ordered by the Tribunal and cited the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Gramodyog Sansthan vs CCE Kanpur [2015 (319) ELT 370 (S.C.)] Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Shree Wood Products (Pvt.) Ltd. vs CCE Delhi [2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed for failure to comply with the stay order. The Judgment of Supreme Court cited in the case of Kisan Gramodyog Sansthan (supra) was, as clearly mentioned therein, passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances and did not lay down any binding ratio. As regards the CESTAT judgment in the case of Shreewood Products (supra), suffice to say that in that case the CESTAT by implication chose to extend the time to make pre-deposit but in that case no time limits were prescribed by High Court/ Supreme Court. Further that judgment of CESTAT is in disharmony with the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Jai Bharat Steel (Supra) as is evident from its paras 4 4.1 summarized in para 3 above. 6. In the light of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
