2013 (9) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evance made by the petitioner is that the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has been filed by the 3rd respondent challenging the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore, after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of passing of the order. It is urged by the petitioner that in such circumstances, when the matter pertains to transfer of CL-9 license which has been effected way back on 11.09.2009, the Tribunal ought to have notified the petitioner before granting any interim order adverse to his interest. It is further contended by the petitioner that during the interregnum from 2011 to 2013, the petitioner has been running business of vending liquor in seven shop premises continuously by paying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t hearing the respondents, no order condoning the delay is required to be passed before admitting the appeal because the appeal could be admitted keeping open the question of limitation as per Regulation 9(f) and once the appeal or petition is so admitted, the Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the application for stay and pass appropriate interim orders. 4. He further points out that the appeal itself is posted before the Tribunal tomorrow (30.08.2013) and the ex-parte interim order is granted only till the next date i.e., 30.08.2013. Hence, without interfering with the ex-parte interim order, this Court may dispose of the writ petition directing the Tribunal to hear both the parties on the application filed for grant of interim stay.....