9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Division Bench of this Court, consisting of M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia, JJ. on 3-5-2004 with certain observations and directions. The copy of the order is annexed to this petition at Annexure-D. 3. From the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court it appears that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "Appellate Tribunal"), Mumbai, passed the order dated 14-1-2004 on the Stay Applications No. 2126 to 2128 of 2003 in Appeals Nos. 3086 to 3088 of 2003, filed by the petitioners, ordering the petitioner company to deposit Rs. 3 Crores out of the total duty demanded and upon such deposit, further deposit of duty and penalty imposed on the company was waived and recovery therof was stayed. The Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls on merit in regular course. Accordingly, the petition was finally disposed of. 5. Once the earlier petition was finally disposed of on 3-5-2004 then, in our considered opinion, the 2nd petition on the same subject would not be maintainable. Therefore, without going into any other question this petition was straightway required to be dismissed on this ground. 6. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the 2nd petition would be maintainable in view of certain observations and directions made on the previous Bench in its order dated 3-5-2004 in earlier petition i.e., in Special Civil Application No. 5523 of 2004 then also there is no substance in this petition and it was required to be dismissed for following reasons : From the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance of Stay order the Appeals were dismissed. Once the Appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order by the Tribunal under Section 35F of the Act then such order cannot be interfered by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is also clear from the impugned order at Annexure : E, passed by the Tribunal that the day on which it had dismissed the Appeals for non-compliance of the Stay order. Admittedly no Application was filed by the petitioners as ordered by the previous Bench of this Court on 3-5-2004 in Special Civil Application No. 5523 of 2004. Be that as it may. 7. It clearly appears that after the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal the petitioners have filed Misc. Civil Application No. E/ROA/974-976 of 2004 before the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
