TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the said order, the appeal was filed before this Tribunal along with an application for stay. By order dated 23/04/2004, this Tribunal dismissed the stay application filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of demand but waived the penalty. Against the said order, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 29/05/2004. The Hon'ble High Court directed this Tribunal not to dismiss the appeal for want of pre-deposit. On 02/05/2005, the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with direction to this Tribunal to consider the application for seeking waiver of pre-deposit. Thereafter, on 23/06/2005 this Tribunal restored the stay application and rejected the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation of stay order passed by this Tribunal on 23/06/2005. On 13/08/2015, the applicant's application for restoration of appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that this Tribunal is not bound to follow the BIFR order. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 23/03/2016. Against the applicant approached to the BIFR and on 18/02/2015 BIFR directed the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise to restore the appeal, which was dismissed by this Tribunal and vide order dated 08/10/2015 BIFR directed this Tribunal to hear the appeal subject to the condition that requirement of pre-deposit is fulfilled. On 05/02/2016, the applicant deposited the amount of Rs. 39,78,938/- a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of dismissal of appeal by this Tribunal, the appellant made pre-deposit and came for restoration of appeal as directed by the BIFR. We further find that in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Processors Industries - 2015 (319) ELT A248 (Guj) observed as under: 6. We are conscious that previously the petitioners were given opportunity to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.50 crores by way of pre-deposit to entertain the appeals and enjoy stay. It is equally true that previously the petitioners did not avail such opportunity. Resultantly, their appeals were dismissed. However, we must be conscious of the fact that petitioners have now offered to deposit entire amount within short time. This is in addition to immovable properties of the petitioners with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners brought to our notice several orders of different Courts as well as the Apex Court where even after considerable period of time, opportunity to proceed in appeal on merits was granted. These orders however, were essentially on different facts. Nevertheless, in special facts of this case we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to deposit entire amount of pre-deposit upon which their appeals can be heard on merits. 9. Further, we note that the issue has again examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Handloom only (2014 (307) ELT 106 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under : 11. Post facto approval to the appellant to receive the amount, was concededly g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006 CU(DB) is hereby set aside. The said appeal is directed to be restored to the file of the Tribunal which shall dispose of the same on merits and after hearing the parties. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 10. We further take note of the fact that in the case of Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: 9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if we direct the Tribunal to accept the "pre-deposit amount" as deposited by the appellants and hear the appeal on merits, it will not cause any prejudice to either side. 10. In view of the above, we now direct the Tribunal to accept the "pre-deposit amount" paid by the app....