2015 (11) TMI 1352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 27.01.2015 for compliance, the Ld. Advocate representing the applicant sought 4 weeks time to seek instruction from the applicant. Compliance period was extended upto 09.02.2015. The applicant has not complied the pre-deposit till 06.02.2015 instead they filed miscellaneous application for recall of the stay order dated 24.11.2014, which was assigned No. ST/MISC/40091/2015. The same was listed on 24.02.2015, 13.05.2015. On that day when the application was listed, the Ld. Advocate sought time on the ground that similar matter was pending before the Tribunal. It was posted for hearing on 01.07.2015 and the Ld. Advocate sought time on the grounds of non-availability of the Counsel. Again it was listed on 13.07.2015. Meanwhile, the applicant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ismissed for non-compliance. 5. After considering the submissions of both sides, We find that this is the case where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal for non-compliance of the stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and Section 83 f the Finance Act, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 6,72,000/- out of total demand of Rs. 13,43,628/-. This Tribunal in its order dated 24.11.2014, considered the applicant's plea and decisions of the Tribunal relied by them in the context of facts borne on record. This Tribunal after taking the same into consideration ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 1,30,000/- 6. As regards the applicant's reliance on miscellaneous order No. 40792/2015 dated 18.05.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad granted interim order at one stage, it should have right to vary or alter such interim orders. We venture to suggest, however, that a consensus should be developed in matter of interim orders. 7. Further we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara Vs. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. - 2004 (163) ELT 403 (S.C.) had clearly considered the power vests on CESTAT under Section 35 C of Central Excise Act, 1944 and held that the error has to be manifest one which could admit of no dispute and not relating to any debatable point. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. CC, Chennai - 2011 (267) ELT 293 (Mad.) considered Section 129 B(2) of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce such finality has been reached, by invoking Rule 41, the same cannot be recalled. The purpose of Rule 41 is not to nullify the order where finality has been reached in the proceedings. Therefore, Rule 41 does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 15.?In my considered opinion, if at all the petitioners have any grievance regarding the orders passed dispensing with only 25% of the demanded amount under Section 129-E of the Act, the petitioners would have done well by challenging the said orders in the manner known to law provided they were of the view that they had a valid ground under Section 129-E of the Act to get pre-deposit of the entire duty amount demanded dispensed with. Without doing so, it is not at all open for the petitio....