9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the Tribunal but also the order of this Court dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure A-6) whereby only Rs. 6 crores was to be deposited. As noticed above, the Apex Court had reduced the amount further to Rs. 4 crores and the appeal was only to be restored subject to the said deposits. The said amounts had never been deposited. The Directors could not hide behind the legal shield that the company had been directed to pay the amount and they were the persons who were agitating before this Court and the Apex Court that the company was functioning through them. The Tribunal in such circumstances has over-stepped its jurisdiction by allowing the application for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeals and thereafter proceeded ahead with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the Ld. CESTAT had erred in passing the order dated 27.08.2018, Annexure A-7 restoring the appeal of the respondent which was earlier dismissed for want of mandatory pre-deposit, ignoring the fact that the respondent had never challenged the order dated 14.03.2013, Annexure A-3 whereby the respondent was granted exemption from pre-deposit subject to the pre-deposit by M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., which order was modified by the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 26.08.2013, Annexure A- 4 as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court, however, M/s PTCL had failed to make the pre-deposit and therefore the appeal of the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2013, Annexure A-5? 3. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,251/- (BED Rs. 38,73,38,299/- + NCC Rs. 5,52,28,601/- + ADD Rs. 4,28,84,243/- + ADE Rs. 1,61,28,485/- + E. Cess Rs. 1,00,31,593/- + S H E. Cess Rs. 21,43,030/-) from M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Plot No. 37B, Sector 6, Faridabad under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (v) I order recovery of interest on the above determined demands of duty from M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Plot No. 37B, Sector 6, Faridabad under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (vi) The amount of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- already deposited by M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Faridabad towards duty liability during the course of investigation, is appropriated against the above demands of duty and the balance amount of determined duty is required to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E 289/12. Vide order dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure A-3), directions were issued to the company to deposit 50% of the duty component assessed which had been fixed from the date of receipt of the order and the said order dated 23.08.2011 was accordingly suspended. It was directed that in default of the deposit the respondents were entitled to take steps for recovery of the entire amount of penalty of the 50% of the default (after taking credit for Rs. 1,08,00,000/- already deposited). The company approached this Court by filing CEA-65-2013 through the Director Mr. A.K. Singh and the Co-ordinate Bench by taking into account the fact that the premises were closed for the last 5 years accepted the appellant s submission to the extent that Rs.6 cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESAT along with the request for restoration of the appeal on behalf of the respondent-Directors taking a misconceived ground that no specific order had been passed against them and therefore the appeal should be restored. It was further pleaded that their was no specific order against the applicant Directors. The stay applications have been verified by none else but by Shri A.K. Singh, Director of the company on 10.08.2018 27.08.2018 (Annexures A-8 A-9). 7. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure A-10), came to the conclusion that the company was to make the pre-deposit and therefore, the applicant should not suffer and therefore, recalled the earlier order dismissing the appeals bearing appeal Nos. 2714 and 2715 of 2011 in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the objection was overruled and the cases were decided on merits. 9. Thus, from the above sequence of events, it would be clear that the applicants-Directors themselves were filing the applications for restoration of the appeals which had already been dismissed by the Tribunal after noticing the non-compliance of the order not only of the Tribunal but also the order of this Court dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure A-6) whereby only Rs. 6 crores was to be deposited. As noticed above, the Apex Court had reduced the amount further to Rs. 4 crores and the appeal was only to be restored subject to the said deposits. The said amounts had never been deposited. The Directors could not hide behind the legal shield that the company had been directed to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
