2015 (10) TMI 1213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Rep. by Shri Poojan Malhotra, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar: In this case, the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 8.12.2011 besides confirming duty demand of Rs. 87,44,929/- against M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. and imposing penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 had imposed penalty of Rs. 50 Lakh on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore to be inferred that direction for pre-deposit of Rs. 87,44,929/- was only for M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. Since the above directed amount was not deposited by M/s. Puneet Exports Inc, the Tribunal vide order dated 2.9.2014 dismissed the appeal of M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. along with the appeals of three appellants - M/s. Century Knitters (India) Ltd., M/s. Natraj Fabrics and M/s. Nimisha Knits....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions for recall of the stay order dated 13.03.2013 and final order dated 2.9.2014 and for restoration of the appeals. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. The order dated 13.03.2013 by which the appeals filed by these three appellants had been dismissed is an ex parte order as the order itself mentions that none was present for the appellants nor there is any adjournment application. Moreover, while....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was no direction given that if the main appellant defaulted, other appellants would also be considered as defaulters, the appeals of the other appellants cannot be dismissed for non-compliance and that without dealing with the individual appellant's case for stay, the Tribunal ought not to have mechanically assumed default and dismissed their appeals. In our view, the order dated 13.03.2013 w....