9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of mainly Partially Oriented Yarn ("POY"). The Appellants had made a referred application to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("B.I.F.R."). Pursuant to the application, BIFR by order dated 4th September 2003 declared the Appellants as a sick industrial company in terms of Section 3 (1) (o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The factory of the Appellants has been closed since 2004. The Appellants were investigated on account of their not having paid National Calamity Contingent Duty ("NCCD") leviable on Polyester Filament Yarn and summons were issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Vapi on 7th May 2004. The Appellants forward their response to the summons. By show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 2007 dismissed the stay application filed by the Appellants and granted liberty to the Appellants to deposit amount of NCCD and penalties payable under the order impugned before it within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the BIFR recommended winding up of the Appellants company on 15th November 2006. An order of winding up was passed by the BIFR on 31st January 2007. The Appellants could not deposit the amount directed to be deposited by the Appellant Tribunal. By an order dated 14th March 2007, the Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed for non-compliance of the pre deposit order dated 12th January 2007. The Appellants filed an application for restoration of the Appeal / Stay application praying for restoration holding that the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Rao learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments. We are of the view that the Appellants have not made any effort to attend the hearings before the Appellate Tribunal and / or place the recommendation of the BIFR for winding up of the Appellants Company on 15th November 2006 before the Appellate Tribunal when the stay application came up for hearing on 12th January 2007. 6. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order reads thus:- "As regards the reliance placed by the ld. Counsel on the proceedings before BIFR, we find that the BIFR authorities, though recommended for winding up of the company on 15th November 2006, the said letter / notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
