TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir individual circumstances and further ought to have entertained their applications for restoration of the appeals - This is more so in view of the fact that the original order did not cast the liability to the extent of 15 crores on the appellants either collectively or individually - The Tribunal should restore the appeals and the applications of the appellants to be decided on merits – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - CEAC Nos. 23-26 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat and R.V. Easwar, JJ. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Satish Kumar, SSC, for the Respondent. ORDER Issue notice. 2. Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal. They sought suspension of the order-in-original and also waiver of pre-deposit required in terms of the Act. By a common order dated 30-9-2011 the CESTAT directed M/s. Sunrise to deposit ₹ 15 crores within 12 weeks and also stated that subject to compliance with that direction the other appellants request for waiver was acceded to. The operative portion of the order reads as under : - 19. Therefore, at this preliminary stage, we direct the main appellant M/s. Sunrise Food Products to make a deposit of ₹ 15 crores (Rupees Fifteen crores) towards duty demanded within 12 weeks from the date of this order and report compliance by 25-1-2012. 5. M/s. Sunrise Food Products approached this Court under Section 35G of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal stated that subject to such compliance the present appellants applications were granted and they were not required to deposit any amount. However, the Tribunal did not visualize a situation where there was either non-payment which was directed by it or partial payment. Noting this aspect was essential because the default of M/s. Sunrise Food Products would have visited the present appellants with adverse consequences. That eventuality in fact materialized when M/s. Sunrise Food Products did not comply with and deposit the requisite amount. Apparently, it did not deposit any amount at all. The Tribunal at least ought to have heard the appellants and considered their individual circumstances and further ought to have entertaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
