TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "the Appellate Tribunal"), on ST/Stay No.1129/12 in ST/A No.490/2012, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for dispensing with to deposit the entire sum made under the proviso of the Central Excise Act (in short the Act) in compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011 (Ann. P.4) passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Indore was allowed only in part and it/he was directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- within eight weeks with a further direction that subject to deposit the aforesaid, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of balance dues during the pendency of the appeal or six months period whichever is earlier. 2. The petitioner's counsel Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, after ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the entire sum in compliance of the conditions of the impugned order (Ann. P.1), by admitting and allowing this petition. In support of his contention he also placed his reliance on the following reported decisions : (I) Eicher Motors Ltd Vs. Union of India reported IN 1993 (66) ELT 161(Del.). (ii) Classic Credit Limited Vs. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange reported in 2009 (248) ELT 181 (Del.) (iii) VIT Sea Foods Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (42) ELT 220 (Ker.) (iv) Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Collr of C. Ex. (A) Cal. Reported in 1994 (69) ELT 193 (Cal.). (v) A. B. Foot Style (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (111) ELT 684 (Cal). (vi) Visaka Industries Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dra Pradesh Vs. Vatsavyi Kumara Venkata Krishna Verma, reported in AIR 1999 SC 745. (iv) Kokkanda B. Poondacha Vs. K. D. Ganpati and Anr. Reported in AIR 2011 SC 1353. 4. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, we have carefully gone through the petition along with the annexed papers so also the impugned order (Ann. P.1). 5. It is undisputed fact on record that the impugned order has been passed by the appellate authority by virtue of the proviso of Section 35 (F) of the Act under its vested discretionary jurisdiction. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the matter, we would like to consider the question of entertainability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the same has been fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the trial Court without considering question whether said order was vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction or order passed by it has resulted in failure of justice." Placitum 9. In view of the aforesaid dictums of the Apex Court, on examining the matter the case at hand, it is apparent that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the interlocutory order of the appellate authority (constituted under the Act), under the vested discretionary jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 35 (F) of the Act. 10. According to Section 35 (F) of the Act for filing the appeal, the appellant like the petitioner is bound to deposit the entire sum and under the proviso consideri....