9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissed the appeal filed by it against order dated 30-11-2000 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1). It has further prayed for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner without insisting on deposit of the disputed amount. 2. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 1 for fresh determination of the annual production capacity of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 passed order dated 30-11-2000 for re-determination of the annual production capacity of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that order as well by filing appeal before the Tribunal. It also applied for stay of the demand of Rs. 11,57,077/- created by respondent No. 1. By an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application was filed by mistake. 2. We find that in the stay application, a demand of Rs. 11,57,077.00 had been indicated against para 2 of the stay application and the stay application was filed in the Registry, which was received on 20-3-2001. 3. As the stay application has already been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an undisputed position that the stay application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and the main appeal was dismissed because it failed to deposit the disputed amount as per the requirement of Section 35F of the Act. In this view of the matter, we would have dismissed the writ petition, but keeping in view the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
