TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso to Section 35F cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority, nor can keep tinkering with the order as and when applications for modification of the order are filed. It is significant to notice that the Supreme Court has ruled in C.C.E. v. A.S.C.U. Ltd.,[2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that the Tribunal does not even have the power to review its orders whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMR.) FOR THE REVENUE. Per Shri S.K.Gaule Heard both sides. 2. The Applicant filed this Application for modification of Stay Order No.S-910/KOL/2012 dated 22.08.2012 passed by this Tribunal, vide which the Applicant were directed to make the predeposit of 50% of the Service Tax. 3. The contention of the Applicant is that the notice of intimation for fixation of the hearing of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not receive the notice. The matter is got verified and it is ascertained from the registry and found that the notice was duly sent to the address stated on the face of the Appeal. We find the duty and penalty involved in the instant case are around Rs.26.72 lakh and the matter was pending since June, 2010, and accordingly, vide the Stay Order dated 22.08.2012, the Applicant were directed to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is woefully lacking in the Tribunal having not exhibited its awareness to the requirements of proviso of Section 35F of the Act. It is also clear that the Tribunal after having exercised jurisdiction for the purposes of passing an order for waiver of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority, nor can keep tinkering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
