2005 (9) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent. [Order per: D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)] - Heard Mr. Dhaval Shah, the learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. This petition primarily challenges the order dated 26/3/2004 made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone, Mumbai. 3. As the facts reveal, the petitioner had moved the stay application before the Tribunal against the order quantifying amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. This order was made on 17th April 2003. 4. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous application for modification of the stay order and one of the grounds on the basis of which the relief was sought was that the petitioner company was registered with Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On 17th February 2004, the Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....secution under provisions of Section 35F of the Act read with the stay order and the order on the Miscellaneous Application for the reason that, on the date of hearing, neither the appellant was present nor was there any compliance report available on record. 6. Mr. Shah on behalf of the petitioner made strenuous efforts to point out that once the petitioner was registered with BIFR, the Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....explast Engineers Ltd. (supra), is misplaced. In the first instance, the said decision does not lay down that merely because a company is registered before the BIFR, no demand could be raised or pursued in absolute terms. In fact, this Court has taken cognizance of the earlier decision of this Court dated 31-3-2004 in Special Civil Application No.9027 of 2003 to point out that the protection avail....