9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing both the sides, we find that vide stay order No. 2475/97/WRB dated 6-6-1997 [1997 (96) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal)], Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 11 Lakhs on or before 31-7-1997 as a condition of hearing of their appeal, out of the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands decided by the apex Court in their favour, in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 308 (S.C.). As such, he submits that the present application be allowed and their appeal be restored to its original number and disposed off accordingly. 4. Vehemently opposing the above prayer of the Ld. Advocate, learned SDR, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depositing the directed amount in question. To revive the appeal after a gap of more than 10 years is like putting life to a body lying dead for 11 years. We also note that the Supreme Court order, on the basis of which the applicant is seeking favour, was on an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, passed in the year 2001, vide which the assessee's appeal was allowed. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elated stage. It is also noted that though the Tribunal's judgment was passed in the year 2001 and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2006, the application was filed in 2008. This only reflects upon the casual attitude of the applicant, which cannot be condoned. It is a clear case of latches on the part of the applicant and the benefit of the same cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
