2006 (11) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) to dispose of restoration application dated 1.5.2006 for restoration of the appeal preferred by it under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.     The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Rods and CTD bars of non-alloy steel falling under Ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt and also sought exemption from pre-deposit of the duty and interest. The 1st respondent by an order dated 21.11.2000 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- within a period of one month.  Since the factory has been seized under Panchanama dated 8.10.1998, it could not fulfill the pre-deposit and consequently the appeal was dismissed.  Earlier, when 2nd respondent levied du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....    Admittedly, the entire amount, which the petitioner was required to deposit as a condition for hearing an appeal has already been deposited.  In somewhat, a similar case, the Supreme Court in Makharia Traders V. Collector [2003(156)E.L.T. A269], after considering the fact that the petitioner deposited the entire amount as required for preferring an appeal has set aside the....