2003 (5) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....]. - In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order Annexure P. 8, dated 5-7-2001 by which Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissed the appeal filed by it against order dated 30-11-2000 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1). It has further prayed for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 1 to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice of attachment by filing an appeal. By an order dated 20-6-2000, the Tribunal remanded the case to respondent No. 1 for fresh determination of the annual production capacity of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 passed order dated 30-11-2000 for re-determination of the annual production capacity of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that order as well by filing appeal before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated 24-4-2001 has not been complied with. He submits that there was no qualification and so the stay application was filed by mistake. 2. We find that in the stay application, a demand of Rs. 11,57,077.00 had been indicated against para 2 of the stay application and the stay application was filed in the Registry, which was received on 20-3-2001. 3. As the stay application has already....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. In our opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an undisputed position that the stay application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and the main appeal was dismissed because it failed to deposit the disputed amount as per the requirement of Section 35F o....