2004 (9) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C. Mani, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  This application filed by the appellants states, inter alia, as under:- "5. It is respectfully submitted that it is not a regular Appeal but a Misc. Application under special circumstances for the implementation of Hyderabad High Court Order on the same subject-matter. In E/164/92 the Hyderabad Hig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 3. Ld. DR opposes this application by submitting that such an application cannot be entertained inasmuch as the appeal filed by the party in this matter has been rejected by the Apex Court. 4. We have examined the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. This is the fourth application filed by the appellants since final di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after, the appellants moved an application for referring the matter to the High Court, which was also rejected. The appellant filed first ROM which was entertained. The second ROM was also rejected in terms of miscellaneous order No. 581/2000, dated 22-12-2000 by recording the finding in para 9 extracted above. We are of the considered opinion that the present application filed is barred by time a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case, we are unable to entertain this application on merits. On the other hand, we have to reject it for preventing abuse of the process of this Tribunal, in exercise of our power under Rule 41 ibid. As already noted in Para-5 of our earlier order dated 15-10-2003, our Final Order dated 1-9-1997 was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court but that appeal was dismissed [1998 (103) E.L.T. A115 (S.C.)]....