2018 (4) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h appeal was dismissed. The applicant/appellant has stated in the petition that he filed the appeal No. C/21292/2014 before this Tribunal for stay and waiver of predeposit. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the appellant has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 crores as predeposit and posted the matter for compliance on 04/09/2014 Thereafter the petitioner filed another petition for modifying the said order of predeposit and thereafter the Tribunal directed the petitioner to produce additional evidence available with the petitioner to prove that the petitioner delivered the goods to bona fide consignees and not fictitious persons. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition for accepting additional evidence....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CC, Jaipur [2016(343) ELT 658 (Tri. Dele)]   v. Baheti Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs, CC, Kandia [2014(314) ELT 390 (Tri. Ahmde)] vi. Huller Screens Manufacturing coe vs. CCE, Kolkata-I [2015(315) ELT 544 (Cal.)] 2. On the other hand, the learned AR vehemently opposed the restoration petition. He further submitted that the amount of customs duty demanded in the present case is Rs. 27,77,16,964/- with equal penalty and this Tribunal vide Misce Order No.21244/2014 dt. 22/05/2014 directed the appellant/petitioner to deposit Rs. 10 crores within 12 weeks. As they have failed to do so, the Hon'ble CESTAT vide Final order No.20023/2016 dt. 12/01/2016 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. He further submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1944 cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority, nor can keep tinkering with such order as and when applications for modification of the order are filed. Further it has been held that the Tribunal does not have the power to review its order while exercising its appellate power under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned AR further relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: - i.Mahesh P Patel vs. Commissioner [2015(315) ELT 420 (Tri. Mum.)]   ii. CST vs. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2015(321) ELT 44 (Bom.)]   iii. Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital Vs. CC, Mumbai [2015(329) ELT 892 (Tri. Mum.)]   iv. Parwati A....