9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-4-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Karan Sachdeva, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These two applications filed by the same applicant are for restoration of their appeals, by recalling Final Order No.ST/163-164/2009 dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Tribunal. In the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by he appellant for non-compliance of stay order dated 28.01.2008, directing the applicant to deposit 50% of the adjudicated demand. 2. The Id. Counsel appearing for the applicant explained the background of the case with chronology of events starting from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled before Apex Court, we make it clear that we shall be guided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any order that shall be passed against such application. We also make it clear that we shall carry out the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any, that may be passed in the Civil Appeal stated to have been filed by the litigant today. 5. Noticing that Revenue has been prejudiced and also following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC) and Benara Valves Ltd. Vs. CC reported in 2006 (204) ELT 513 (SC) , we are unable to appreciate undue hardship of the appellant. Rather the case demonstrates to be of dilatory tactics on the part of the Appellant to cause prejudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the applications filed, in continuation of the said Writ Petition, were also disposed of vide orders dated 09.09.2008 and 24.11.2008. The applicant did not comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court gave extension of time twice. As a final opportunity, six weeks time was granted vide their order dated 09.09.2008. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals filed by the applicant vide their order dated 13.07.2009. In this factual background, the Tribunal cannot entertain the applications, now filed by the applicant, as the Tribunal's order has been taken to higher Courts by the applicant and the applicant did not comply with the direction of the Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
