2014 (5) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 22.1.2004 passed by CEGAT. 2. The petition arises in the following background. Petitioner no.1 is a company. On 26.2.1991, officers of the central excise department during the visit to factory premises of petitioners' company noticed certain irregularities in clearing goods on mis-declaration. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty of Rs.54.05 lakhs and personal penalty of Rs.10 lakh each on two directors. The petitioner challenged the same before the tribunal. Along with such appeal, the petitioner prayed for stay also. Though the order passed by the tribunal on such stay petitions are not on record, we have gathered basic facts from the draft writ petition of 2004 as at Annexure-K to the petition giving certain fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esting for restoration of appeals. On such application, the tribunal passed its impugned order on 22.1.2004. The tribunal noted that the proceedings before the BIFR was still pending and BIFR has not yet declared the company as a sick unit. The petitioner also offered to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and prayed for such modification of order of pre-deposit. The tribunal however, dismissed such appli....