9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. 2. Ld. Jt. CDR, Shri S.K. Panda submits that the Bench has very leniently passed the order in the past considering difficulties of the Appellant. Reasonable opportunity for making pre-deposit in two instalments was granted by the Tribunal in terms of order dated 3-2-2009. But the Appellant failed to comply with that order and directed amount was not deposited. The Appellant thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad for appropriate direction as well as filed a modification application before Tribunal on 6-3-2009. The Hon'ble High Court by an order dated 6-4-2009 dismissed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1013 of 2009 filed by both the Appellants. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as deposited by the Appellant. So also the Tribunal took cognisance of the balance-sheet of the Appellant as on 31-3-2008. Considering the financial difficulties of the Appellants, the Tribunal reduced the quantum of pre-deposit from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 40 lakhs and subject to verification of deposit of Rs. 12.00 lakhs stated to have been deposited by the Appellant an amount of Rs. 28.00 lakhs was directed to be deposited within 4 weeks and make compliance on 4-6-09 by the Appellant M/s. Jhoola Refineries Ltd. in Appeal Case No. 725/2006. So far as the Appellant Shri M.K. Jhunjhuwala is concerned, he was directed to deposit Rs. 5.00 lakhs by the above said date. While passing the order Tribunal made a specific order in terms of para-5 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and stating the difficulties of the ld. Counsel. 8. Ld. Jt. CDR earnestly prays that the Appeals be dismissed for the dilatory tactics followed by the Appellant abusing process of law. The Appellant do not deserve further leniency except dismissal of the Appeal. The Appellants have availed adequate opportunity from Tribunal. But taking advantage of the leniency, they have abused process of law. Any further time if granted to them shall cause serious prejudice to the interest of Revenue when working modalities as above was made by the Tribunal from time to time till 9th June, 2009 to remove hardship to the Appellant. Such working modality not being followed by the Appellants, they proved their disregard to law. Therefore Revenue's in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... athetic consideration for the difficulties of the ld. Counsel, we are unable to notice Appellant's regard to law who did not inform whether any deposit was made or bank guarantee was furnished to the Authorities to protect interest of Revenue. Balance of inconvenience does not weigh heavier in favour of the Appellant. The case demonstrates that any further adjournment of the matter may cause prejudice to Revenue. However, we did not try in this case to dispose the stay application in a routine manner or unmindfully without having regard to the consequences of the situation. We were also guided by Apex Court in the case of Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 2009 (237) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). We have also given due consideration to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
