9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.04.2017. The said period was also lapsed before the appellant finally made such pre-deposit before approaching the Tribunal with the present Miscellaneous Applications. The Revenue has strongly objected to such restoration after delayed compliance of the order for making pre-deposit - the issue settled in the case of RAKESH KUMAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , NHAVA SHEVA [2015 (10) TMI 2611 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where by majority order the Tribunal held that the Tribunal cannot accept the amount deposited by the appellant after the extended period granted by the Hon’ble High Court for restoring the appeal. The appeals cannot be restored. - MA-(ROA)-77100,77101/18 & MA (AE)-77317,77318/18 (Ex. Appeal Nos.445,446/10) - MO/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the said decision, but the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 06.09.2016. The issue was further carried by the appellants before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide their Order dated 10.04.2017 in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.965- 966/2017 dismissed the SLPs, but granted a further four weeks time for making predeposit amounting to ₹ 35 lakhs. 3. Heard Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant for the appellants/applicants. He submitted that the direction of the Hon ble Apex Court for pre-deposit of an amount of ₹ 35 lakhs has now been complied with by the appellants. He submitted that pre-deposit totally amounting to ₹ 42 lakhs has been made by the appellants. He prayed that the appeals may be rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dismissal order of the Tribunal was carried by the appellants before the Hon ble High Court at Calcutta and further before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Neither of the higher judicial forum interfered with the order of the pre-deposit of the Tribunal, but granted further time for making pre-deposit which was also reduced to ₹ 35.00 lac. Finally, the Hon ble Supreme Court extended the period for making such pre-deposit by a further period of four weeks from the date of their order i.e. 10.04.2017. The said period was also lapsed before the appellant finally made such pre-deposit before approaching the Tribunal with the present Miscellaneous Applications. 7. The Revenue has strongly objected to such restoration after delayed complian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Oils Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 475 (Bom.) wherein the Lordship in Para 3 held as under : - We have noted this statement in the affidavit in reply. The 3. law on the point is very clear. When there is Court s order and which directs the Authority like the Commissioner of Customs to decide the case within a particular time frame, then, it is his bounden duty to adhere to it. If there are any difficulties in following and abiding by the schedule prescribed in the Court s order, then, appropriate applications have to be made seeking extension of time and the Court must be apprised of all developments and difficulties, it is when the Court extends time, then, the matter can be decided within that extended period, else all such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
