9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the matter came up before the Bench for report of compliance, the Bench did not accept the reversal of credit in the Modvat account as proper compliance with the aforesaid order under Section 35F. The Bench, therefore, dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F vide Final Order No. A/765/95-NB, dated 22-9-1995. On 23-1-1996, the appellants filed a letter with this Tribunal informing that they had debited an amount of Rs. 28,287/- in their PLA so as to comply with the earlier order for pre-deposit of the amount under Section 35F. By that time, they had also filed an application for restoration of the appeal. That application was disposed of by the Bench as per Misc. Order dated 25-3-1996, whereby the Bench, in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el submits that both the payments had been made in pursuance of interim directions of this Tribunal. The PLA debit could be maintained for purposes of Section 35F in Appeal No. 1055/95 and the Modvat re-credit in RG 23A Part-II be approved in the present appeal. Counsel submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only just and proper that the impugned proceedings of the department for recovery of the Modvat credit be set aside. 3. Ld. SDR, Shri S.C. Pushkarna opposes the above prayer on the strength of the findings of the adjudicating and first appellate authorities. 4. I have carefully examined the submissions. The basic facts are not in dispute. The Appeal No. E/1055/95-B is still pending. As long as that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters. Any previous interim order whatsoever passed by the Bench under Section 35F stood modified by the order dated 25-3-1996 insofar as the nature of pre-deposit under Section 35F was concerned. The final position is that, in Appeal No. E/1055/95-B, the reversal of Rs. 28,287/- in RG 23A Part-II stands recognized and accepted as due and proper compliance with Section 35F and the same should remain as such during the pendency of that appeal. The appellant's act of taking re-credit of the amount in the Modvat account pending the above appeal is not only unauthorised as rightly found by the authorities below but also appears to be in the nature of abuse of the process of this Tribunal. They have got to undo the mischief. The departmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
