2012 (11) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ashekar Reddy, SC, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Excise for the respondents. 2. The order dated 23-7-2012 passed by the fourth respondent-Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the CESTAT') rejecting the petitioner's miscellaneo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oposed in the show cause notice was substantially confirmed. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent, which authority by the order dated 13-5-2005 directed the petitioner to pre-deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- within a month. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount as set out in the order dated 13-5-2005. Consequently by the order dated 24-11-2005 the third respondent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion No. 15086 of 2009 seeking a copy of the appellate order. In the Writ Petition, the respondents took the plea that the order was already communicated to the petitioner. However, pursuant to orders of this Court dated 28-7-2009 in the said Writ Petition, a copy of the appellate order was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal before the CESTAT along with an app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ever pleads that the petitioner has good case for seeking recall of the final order passed by the CESTAT on 5-4-2010 rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that notwithstanding the petitioner's lack of diligence in prosecuting the subsequent miscellaneous applications an opportunity be afforded to the petitioner on terms to enable it to prosecute its application fo....