2018 (3) TMI 1545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original No.16-21/CE/PKJ/CCE/ADJ/2010 dated 09.07.2010. The Tribunal vide interim order no.59907-59915/2013-EX(DB) dated 27.11.2013 directed the assessee-AppelIants to make the pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty amount. The duty was not involved in the present appeal. 3. The assessee-Appellants, being a sick unit, come under the jurisdiction of BIFR where they have moved an application before the BIFR regarding the pre-deposit of 25%, as asked by the CESTAT. The BIFR allowed the application on 17.01.2014 and directed to make the pre-deposit of Rs. 4.64 crores in Modified Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (MDRS). Against the said order, the assessee-Appellants have filed the appeal before the Hon'ble De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....these circumstances, he submits that there is a reasonable cause for the Restoration of Appeal by condoning the delay in making the pre-deposit belatedly. Finally, he submits that the appeal may kindly be restored to its original number. 8. On the other hand, Shri H.C. Saini, learned DR along with Shri Satya Veer Singh, Sr. Investigating Officer, DGCEI, justified the impugned order. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of assessee-Appellants (Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2016 vide order dated 12.05.2016) has observed that: "We are not deciding this issue in the present appeal and permit the parties to approach the Board seeking clarification as to what was meant by the words 'to consider' i.e., whether the Boar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inable. Since, the demand of the present case is not covered by the BIFR order dated 17.01.2014, more over the said plea of the assessee-Appellants has already been dismissed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Appeal No.CEAC 04/2014 vide order dated 31.01.2014 on the ground that demand of the present case is not, covered under BIFR as the company had already been discharged by BIFR on 29.06.2007, when the company's net worth had become positive. Moreover, at present, Scheme has already lapsed. Therefore, in the light of present circumstances of the company, the application for Restoration of Appeal is not sustainable on merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record,....