TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HMED, J (ORAL) CM 9160/2010 in CEAC 3/2010 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM 9161/2010 in CEAC 3/2010 CM 9203/2010 in CEAC 4/2010 The delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. CEAC 3/2010 & CEAC 4/2010 1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Custom Appeal Nos. 538/2008, 539/2008, 540/2008 and 557/2008. The said appeals had been filed by M/s Novamet Industries, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla, Shri Satish Bhalla and Shri Vinay Jain, respectively. It is an admitted position that Smt Sangeeta Bhalla is the wife of Shri Satish Bhalla and that Smt Sangeeta Bhalla is also a partner in the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case, CESTAT, by virtue of its said order dated 13.10.2008 passed the following order:- "We, therefore, direct the appellant company to deposit an amount of Rs.Fifteen crores within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. This amount is in addition to Rs.One crore fifty lakhs already deposited by them. On depositing this amount within the stipulated period, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duties and penalties shall stand waived and the recovery thereof shall be stayed. Compliance to be reported on 19.11.08." 5. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by CESTAT, the appellants herein, namely, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla and Shri Satish Bhalla along with the firm M/s Novamet Industries filed a commo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y by the Tribunal, if possible, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. We further clarify that any observation in this order shall not be construed as opinion expressed by this Court on merit of the issues subjudice before the Tribunal and it shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the material available before it and applicable law. With the aforesaid modification/direction this appeal stands disposed of." 6. Still being aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the appellants herein, namely, Smt Sangeeta Bhalla and Shri Satish Bhalla along with the firm M/s Novamet Industries filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 6344/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that although the petitioner had stated that a review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court, since no order had been placed before the CESTAT, the latter was bound to follow the order of the Supreme Court passed on 30.03.2009. The Tribunal, therefore, by its impugned order dated 21.05.2009, noting the fact that the pre-deposit had not been made, dismissed all the four appeals including that of the appellants herein. 10. Before us, Mr Rawal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the requirement of pre-deposit of duties was only in respect of the firm, i.e., M/s Novamet Industries and the said direction of making the pre-deposit had no application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sit not only for duties but also for the penalties. As mentioned above, the order dated 13.10.2008 was a common order in respect of the four applications and it was specifically mentioned therein that if the pre-deposit was made within the stipulated period, the requirement of the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duties and "penalties" would stand waived and the recovery thereof would be stayed. It is obvious that on making the payment of the pre-deposit amount of duties, the penalties which were imposed on all the four appellants including the present appellants would have been stayed. Therefore, the plea taken by Mr Rawal that appellants' applications were not considered by CESTAT is clearly untenable. 12. In any event,....