9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inary jurisdiction is made out. 2.The petitioner is a private limited company and claims to be 100% export oriented Unit. 3.As per the averments made by the petitioner, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice by the Excise Officer dated 30-3-2004 stating that whi1e making clearances of goods in Domestic Tariff Area, in the month of March and April, 2003, the assessee has wrongly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner No. 1 may pre-deposit Rs. 4 crores against total demand of over Rs. 10 crores and petitioner No. 2, a Director of the company makes a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lacs. The compliance report was directed to be made on 17-2-2005. 7.However, the amount was not deposited, on 7-2-2005, an application was moved for modification of the interim order primarily on the ground that because of the clos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared on behalf of the petitioner. The Tribunal observed that, since compliance of pre-deposit has not been made, appeal cannot be restored. 9.After about six months on 21-12-2005, This petitioner moved another application seeking direction to quash all the orders referred above including the order of Commissioner dated 21-12-2005. 10.The requirement of pre-deposit before the appeal is heard i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y jurisdiction of this Court to restore the appeal to be heard on merits without pre-deposit. 11.When it was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is still willing to get the appeal decided on merit by depositing the demand as directed by the Tribunal, then his response was in negative. 12.We are of the opinion, in these circumstances, no interference in extra-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
