9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits of the stay - petitioner, having enjoyed the benefit of the order, cannot take a contradictory stand. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the formula provided by the Tribunal in the said order, the petitioner should have challenged the same - petition dismissed - decvided against petitioner. - Special Civil Application No. 6323 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr Paresh V Sheth, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms Avani S Mehta, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged communications dated 18.01.2017 and 23.01.2017 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad to Stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal. The matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 27.6.2011. 2.2 Thus, as per the order of the Tribunal, upon the company depositing a sum of ₹ 2 crores within the time specified by way of pre-deposit, balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty on the company as also other appellants (which would include the present petitioner) would be waived and its recovery would be stayed pending appeals. Thus, the order of the CESTAT was a composite order, covering the question of predeposit as well as stay pending appeals. The Tribunal, having noted that the appeals arise out of common proceedings, proceeded for a common formula of predeposit and conditional stay. The company would deposit a sum of ₹ 2 crores, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included the company, the present petitioner and other Directors of the company. The stay was conditi0onal. The company had to deposit ₹ 2 crores within the stipulated time. When the company failed to deposit such amount, there would be no stay in favour of the company or appellants. The petitioner, having enjoyed the benefit of the order, cannot argue that even if the company failed to deposit the amount, other appellants should continue to enjoy benefits of the stay. In other words, contention of the Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner cannot be penalized for non-deposit of the amount by the company. The petitioner, having enjoyed the benefit of the order, cannot take a contradictory stand. If the petitioner was aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
