2012 (11) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Supdt.(A.R.)  for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri S.K.Gaule. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for modification of the stay order No.S-645-646/KOL/2012 dated 10.07.2012 vide which the applicant were directed to make pre-deposit. 3. The contention of the applicant is that the hearing was fixed for 10.07.2012 and they requested for adjournment. However, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us to pursue their petitions at any stage. Accordingly the applicants were directed to make 50% duty demanded in each case as against the demand of duty of Rs. 19,51,315/- and equal amount of penalty in one case and duty of Rs. 5,81,003/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and to report compliance on 12.09.2012. The modification of the order at this stage would amount to tinkering with our own order. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority, nor can keep tinkering with the order as and when applications for modification of the order are filed. It is significant to notice that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tribunal does not even have the power to review its orders while exercising its appellate power under Section 35C of the Act, See (2003) SCC 230 - 2003 (1....