TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - This is an application by M/s. Jay Rapid Rollers Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which has been dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. A/599/2002-NB, dated 28-5-2002. 2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Stay Order No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a demand of more than Rs. 8.76 crores has been dropped by the Commissioner under Order-in-Original dated 28-11-2003; that therefore, the very applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 become misconceived and void ab initio; that since the applicability of Rule 57CC was based on presumption that re-rubberizing is a manufacturing activity though exempted from payment of duty or c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before 18-7-2000; that instead of depositing the amount the applicants had filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court; that the learned Sr. Counsel for the Applicants sought leave of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to withdraw the application with liberty to approach the Tribunal for modification of Order dated 5-4-2002 and 28-5-2002; that the High Court accordingly dismissed the application as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n their Misc. application for modification of the Stay Order and their appeal was dismissed vide Final Order No. A-599/2002-NB-D, dated 28-5-2002. The Appellate Tribunal, however, given them liberty to apply for restoration, if they deposit the sum ordered to be deposited before 18-7-2002 which also has not been done by the Applicants. A subsequent order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise ....