2018 (12) TMI 935 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – TMI – Pre-deposit – It is the case of the petitioner that due to financial constraints, it could not deposit the aforesaid amount of ₹ 25 lacs within the stipulated period – Held that:- This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that an appeal under Section 35G of the Act of 1944 lies against the order of the CESTAT before this Court and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper remedy. The petitioner having filed an appeal before this Court against the earlier order dated 13.05.2005 of the Tribunal cannot circumvent such course or remedy.
–
The present writ petition laying challenge to the order passed by the CESTAT way back on 07.02.2012, is apparently a subterfuge to overcome the hurdle of limitation which stands expired six years ago – petition not maintainable and is dismissed. – D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13318/2018 Dated:- 1-12-2018 – Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha And Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta For
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the adjudicating authority had not supplied the relied upon documents to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, another order came to be passed by the adjudicating authority on 23.08.2004, whereby not only the duty of ₹ 2,23,64,285/- was confirmed, an equal amount of penalty (Rs.2,23,64,285/-) was also inflicted upon the petitioner under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1944 ). The appellant approached the CESTAT feeling aggrieved with the said order dated 23.08.2004, by way of filling an appeal along with a stay application/ application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal vide its order dated 07.02.2005 disposed of petitioner s application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 25 lacs within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order viz. 07.02.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that due to financial constraints, it could not deposit the aforesaid amount of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
est, the BIFR passed an order dated 04.03.2010 and permitted the petitioner Company to deposit the amount of ₹ 25 lacs within two weeks, with a corresponding direction to the CESTAT to hear the company s appeal on deposit of ₹ 25 lacs. It will not be out of place to reproduce the stipulation contained in the BIFR s order dated 04.03.2010, which runs as under :- (c) The company would deposit ₹ 25.00 lacs with Excise Department out of the direction of 25%, by CESTAT within two weeks. In the interest of revival of the company, CESTAT is directed to consider hearing the company s appeal on deposit of ₹ 25.00 lacs. The petitioner however deposited the aforesaid amount of ₹ 25 lacs on 25.06.2010, after about 15 weeks as against 2 weeks time allowed by the Tribunal. The petitioner then moved the CESTAT by way of filing an application on 03.08.2010 and prayed that the order dated 13.05.2005 rejecting its appeal be recalled and the appeal be heard on merit. The sai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =