Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (10) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Bench directing the applicant to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) against the amount of duty demanded. The present application is for reconsideration/review, including rectification of the said Order. When the present application came up for hearing on 5-6-1992 by the Two-Member Bench, the Bench observed that since the present application relates to the modification of the stay order passed by a Three-Member Bench it would be more appropriate if the present application is heard by a Three-Member Bench, preferably by the same Bench or at least by a Three-Member Bench and, therefore, the matter be placed before the Hon ble President. Thereafter the papers were placed before the Hon ble President of this Tribunal who vide his order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submission was that the present application be heard by a Three-Member Bench notwithstanding the Order of the Hon ble President dated 10-6-1992. 2. In reply Smt. Ananya Ray, learned SDR, submitted that the present application is not an application for modification and it could be termed as an application for variation or vacation of the interim order (stay order) passed earlier and cited the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) wherein in paragraph 53 it is observed that - Good deal of arguments were canvassed before us for variation or vacation of the interim orders passed in these cases. Different courts sometimes pass different interim orders as the courts think fit. It is a matter of common .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... discrepancy Shri Gujral, learned counsel, could not reply satisfactorily. At one stage, he submitted that this is a review application adding that though it may include the prayer for rectification. When pointed out by the Bench that if the present application is for rectification of mistake then under Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) and Rules, 1982, the President has the power to pass such orders regarding the hearing of the application by a Bench different from the Bench which heard and passed the order earlier, he submitted that this Tribunal has inherent powers to reconsider or review its interlocutory order under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) and Rules, 1982 as interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Paras Laminates, 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ujral, learned counsel, at the outset repeatedly submitted that he is confining his arguments only on the financial position of the applicant and drew our attention to the provisional Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1991 on the basis of which the aforesaid Stay Order No. 01/92-C was passed and also to the Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1992. It was his contention that while passing the aforesaid stay order the Bench considered the total assets of the Company, including total debtors, sundry creditors. Advances against sales and gross profits. He submitted that actually as per the provisional Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1991 total sundry creditors were Rs. 80,03,148.93 and not Rs. 47,59,505.15. With reference to the Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1992 he subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 31-3-1992 we find that the total current assets of the applicants exceeds the total current liabilities substantially i.e. by Rs. 86,30,454.66. Their current assets include inventories to the tune of Rs. 40,34,767.02, sundry debtors Rs. 75,04,771.38 etc. Under these circumstances we do not find any justification to vary or alter the earlier stay order passed by the Bench. In the result the application is rejected. However, before dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the Stay Order No. 01/92-C, we in the interest of justice, direct the appellants to comply with the said order by 30th November, 1992. Failure to comply with the stay order mentioned above may entail the dismissal of the appeal without any further notice. To come up for p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates