TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the petitioner-Company is not interested in the proceedings - petition rejected - 6879 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2009 - K.S. Jhaveri and Z.K. Saiyed, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri JD Shah, for the Petitioner. Ms. M.L. Shah, AGP, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Jhaveri, J. (Oral)]. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-Company. 2.1 Show cause notice dated 25-1-1995 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner-Company submitted its reply vide reply dated 12-2-1996. After considering all the aspects, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, Respondent No. 3 herein, passed the order dated 14-2-1997, whereby, an amount of Rs. 44,53,487.65 was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner-Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, on 12-12-1997, the CEGAT, Mumbai passed the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against the said order, the petitioner-Company preferred Misc. Application No. E/ROA/1164 of 2008 in Appeal No. E/931 of 1997 for restoration of the main appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt passed in S.C.A. No. 2213/2001, dated 11-3-2008 [2009 (234) E.L.T. 636 (Guj.)] and which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner-Company shall not come in the rescue of the petitioner-Company inasmuch as in that case, there was no such delay in preferring the restoration application as is the case in this matter. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to the present case. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
