TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions cited by the learned AR for the department - application for rectification of mistake dismissed - decided against applicant. - C/ROM/21353/2015 in C/27184/2013-DB - 20004/2016 - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. Ashwin Gopa Kumar, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR, For the Respondent Per : S.S GARG The appellant has filed an application under Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for setting aside or recalling final order dated 13.7.2015 and modify or amend stay order No.20868/2015 dated 30.4.2015 by granting full and unconditional stay of recovery of dues determined by the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue to paucity of time and whenever the counsel could not attend the Tribunal in person, request for adjournment were duly sent as per the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. On 20.4.2014, advocate Mr. Arjun R. Nair, an Associate attached to his office had appeared before this Tribunal and requested that the matter may be posted after three weeks for hearing. The appeal was next listed on 30.4.2015 and since the appellant s counsel had a genuine/compelling personal inconvenience and had to stay back in Ernakulam, he had sent a request for adjournment by fax, since he had taken positive steps and nothing further was heard in this regard. He was under a bona fide impression that the hearing in the stay application had been adjourned at his request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in eight weeks and report compliance on 13.7.2015 but the stay order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the appellant in any forum. She further submitted that the compliance came up before the Tribunal on 13.7.2015 and it was found that there was no compliance by the appellant and there was no extension taken by the appellant against the stay order during the interlocutory period. Thereafter the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order and the appeal was also finally dismissed by the Tribunal. She further submitted that by filing the miscellaneous application dated 26.6.2015 for rectification of mistake, wherein in fact the appellant sought recalling of the Final Order dated 13.7.2015 and also to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore-III vs. McDowell Co. Ltd.: 2005 (186) ELT 145 (Kar.) 2.2 She further submitted that appellant cannot file ROM application in the case the stay order passed by the Tribunal and for this she placed reliance on Silver Grace Polypacks Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I: 2014 (314) ELT 823 (Tri.-Del.). 3. We have considered submissions of both the parties and perused the record and also have considered the judgment cited at bar. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.4.2015 dismissed the stay application by observing that none have been appearing to defend the case of the appellant and directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount and for reporting compliance and the next date was fixed on 13.7.2015. But on 13.7.2015, no compliance was ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
