9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im Stay of all the proceedings before the Tribunal. The order passed by the High Court is extracted below :- In WP. 17703 of 2001 M/S. HARIKRISHNA POLYMERS (P) LTD., PETITIONER REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, R. NARAYANAMOORTHY V. (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SHASTRI BHAVAN ANNEXE, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI. RESPONDENT 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II COMMISSIONERATE, 47, MHU COMPLEX, ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI 35 Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Order No. 250/2001(E/Stay/433/2000 in Appeal No. E. 873/2001), dt. 8-5-2001 (pronounced in Court on 6-7-2001) pending disposal of WP No. 17703 of 2001. ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Writ Petition is finally disposed of. 6. On a careful consideration of the submission, we notice that the Tribunal by its Stay Order had directed the appellants to pre deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and to list the same for reporting compliance on 5-10-2001. In the meantime, the appellants had already filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court and had obtained Interim Stay order on all the proceedings before the CEGAT. The Hon'ble High Court has already directed the Tribunal to remit the records for consideration of their Writ Petition pending before them. Subsequent order of dismissal under Section 35F was as a result of the Interim order of the Stay order not having been placed before the Tribunal at the time when the matter was listed for reporting compliance. Therefore, as the matter has already been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, the dismissal order could not have been passed and as a result, I am of the considered opinion that the order of dismissal under Section 35F passed by Final Order Nos. 1755 to 1758/2001, dated 6-10-2001 is required to be recalled and appeals restored to its original numbers and the records are required to be remitted to the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5/2000, dated 28-3-2000. 10. They were, therefore, required to pre deposit a further sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by 5-10-2001 vide Stay Order Nos. 250-253/2001 pronounced in the open Court on 6-7-2001 and on such deposit, the balance amount of Rs. 15,27,050/- towards duty and an amount of Rs. 76,27,950/- towards penalty on various functionaries of the appellant-company was ordered to be waived and its recovery stayed. 11. On 5-10-2001, when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants including Shri T. Ramesh, Counsel for the appellants nor was there any report of compliance. The ld. DR had prayed for dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for non compliance as the appellants had not pre-deposited the said amount. After considering the prayer of the ld. DR, we noticed that there was clear direction to the appellants to pre deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and to report compliance on 5-10-2001. It was also made clear that if they did not pre deposit the said amount, then the appeals shall be dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. As the appellants and their Counsel were not present to report compliance, all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to our notice today (3-1-2002). The above interim stay order was also on the understanding that the petitioner has paid nearly Rs. 15,00,000/- out of the total demand of Rs. 40,27,050/- and since an amount of Rs. 10,47,589/- was adjusted in the Order-in-Original by the ld. Commissioner, I desired to know whether they have got any TR-6 challan as proof of having deposited a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- including Rs. 10,47,589/- already paid by them and adjusted by the ld. Commissioner. 14. It is my humble view that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has not directed us to recall the Final Order Nos. 1755-1758/01, dated 5-10-2001 by which we had dismissed their appeal for non deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 15. During the course of dictation of separate order by me in the open Court, learned Counsel, Shri T. Ramesh has interrupted me by threatening that the order dictated by me may lead to contempt of the Hon'ble High Court. Here, I would like to clarify that I have got highest respects for the Hon'ble High Court under whose superintendence and control, all the Tribunal in their respective jurisdiction are working. I am of the humble opinion that order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OR Whether the order recorded by Member (T) Shri Jeet Ram Kait holding that the miscellaneous application for re-calling of the Order Nos. 1755-1758/2001, dated 5-10-2001 and restoring the appeal to its original number, is pre-mature and non-maintainable, is legal and proper. The Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble President to refer it to the 3rd Member. Sd/-Jeet Ram Kait,Member (T) Sd/-S.L. Peeran, Member (J) 17. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - In view of my ld. Brother's observation in the above order, I wish to reiterate my view that the stay order in this case has been stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras by WP Miscellaneous Petition No. 17703/2001 and all further proceedings in this case have been stayed. Registry has received the Writ of Certiorari Order Nisi to produce and or to appear in the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the said matter vide their order dated 9-10-2001. It is seen that the matter had been listed for reporting compliance on the stay order on 5-10-2001 on which date the Hon'ble High Court's stay order was in force. Therefore, the order of dismissal for non-deposit under Section 35F o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
