2018 (12) TMI 935

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of India is not proper remedy. The petitioner having filed an appeal before this Court against the earlier order dated 13.05.2005 of the Tribunal cannot circumvent such course or remedy. The present writ petition laying challenge to the order passed by the CESTAT way back on 07.02.2012, is apparently a subterfuge to overcome the hurdle of limitation which stands expired six years ago - petition not maintainable and is dismissed.
Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha And Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Bhati on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Nahar. JUDGMENT PER DINESH MEHTA, J :- The petitioner Company has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, laying challenge t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 25 lacs within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order viz. 07.02.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that due to financial constraints, it could not deposit the aforesaid amount of ₹ 25 lacs within the stipulated period. For want of the compliance of the conditions, the stay granted by the Tribunal came to be vacated and the appeal itself was rejected by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 13.05.2005. The petitioner's appeal before this Court, against the rejection of the appeal vide order above referred too come to be rejected vide order dated 03.02.2006, albeit, with the observation quoted below :- "if the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount of ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on merit. The said application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the CESTAT, vide its order dated 07.02.2012 interalia holding that the BIFR is not an appellate authority / an authority competent to modify or alter the order passed by it and also because the aforesaid amount of ₹ 25 lacs was deposited on 25.06.2010, after the expiry of the period stipulated in the order of the BIFR dated 04.03.2010. Confronted with the jugglery of the facts, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that an appeal under Section 35G of the Act of 1944 lies against the order of the CESTAT before this Court and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper remedy. The petitioner having filed an appeal before t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X