TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. This application for restoration of appeal has been filed on the ground that vide Final Order No. 284/2003-NB(C), dated 29-5-2003, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 16-1-2003. The applicants thereafter filed three applications for restoring the appeal to its original number but all applications were rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication may also be rejected. 3. On considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the Appeal No. 2694 of 2002 was filed by the applicants against the Order-in-Original No. 27/Comm/MI/2002, dated 3-9-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I in which duty of Rs. 5,46,47,223/- was demanded and a penalty of Rs. 1 crore was imposed on the applicant. The stay app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has also not complied with this and thus the order became final. Thereafter, the applicants without depositing the amount, moved application for restoration of the appeal on 24-7-2003. They again filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 14th September, 2005 without depositing any amount which was dismissed under Misc Order No. 212/2006, dated 9-3-2006. The present Misc application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
