M\/s. Global Syntex (Bhilwara) Ltd. Versus The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Assistant Commissioner And The Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 935 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – TMI
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-12-2018
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13318\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha And Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta
\nFor the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Bhati on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Nahar.
\nJUDGMENT
\nPER DINESH MEHTA, J :-
\nThe petitioner Company has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226\/227 of the Constitution of India, laying challenge to the order dated 07.02.2012, passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the CESTAT”). The present writ petition impugning the order passed in February 2012 has been filed on 31.08.2018.
\nThe facts relevant are that the petitioner Company engaged in manufacture of process<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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 Rs. 25 lacs within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order viz. 07.02.2005. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the company's appeal on deposit of Rs. 25.00 lacs.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Global Syntex (Bhilwara) Ltd. Versus The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Assistant Commissioner And The Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (12) TMI 935 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – TMIRAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 1-12-2018D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13318\/2018 Central ExciseMr. Justice Sangeet Lodha And Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta … Continue reading “M\/s. Global Syntex (Bhilwara) Ltd. Versus The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Assistant Commissioner And The Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15568\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIt is the case of the petitioner that due to financial constraints, it could not deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25 lacs within the stipulated period. For want of the compliance of the conditions, the stay granted by the Tribunal came to be vacated and the appeal itself was rejected by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 13.05.2005.
\nThe petitioner's appeal before this Court, against the rejection of the appeal vide order above referred too come to be rejected vide order dated 03.02.2006, albeit, with the observation quoted below :-
\n “if the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25 Lacs, it would be open for the respondent No.1 to restore the appeal to be heard on me<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe petitioner however deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 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.
\nThe said application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the CESTAT, vide its order dated 07.02.2012 interalia holding that the BIFR is not an appellate authority \/ an authority competent to modify or alter the order passed by it and also because the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25 lacs was deposited on 25.06.2010, after the expiry of the period stipulated in the order of the BIFR dated 04.03.2010.
\nConfronted with the jugglery of the facts, 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 Co<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n