TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal, directed to pursue the alternate remedy - the applicant being not a party to the Appeals before this Tribunal, do not have any locus standi in approaching this Tribunal for relief against recovery proceeding by the Department – there was no substance in their prayer seeking modification of the order of this Tribunal - the Miscellaneous application is dismissed – Decided against Assessee. - Appeal No.-453/2008 - ORDER NO.M-220/KOL/13 - Dated:- 26-7-2013 - DR.D.M. MISRA AND DR. I.P. LAL, JJ. For the Appellant: Sri Partha Banerjee, Advocate, Sri S.Dasgupta, Advocate, Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Debasis De, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri S. Chakraborty, A.C. (A.R.) A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that aggrieved by the said order, M/s. Motihari Chini Udyog filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court at Patna and the Hon ble High Court pleased to modify the order of the Tribunal directing M/s. MCU to deposit Rs.30.00 Lakhs latest by 15/4/2010.M/s. MCU however, did not deposit the said amount but preferred a modification application before the Hon ble High Court. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the said modification application was rejected on 8/11/2012. Pursuant to the rejection of the modification application by the Hon ble High Court, the Department initiated recovery proceeding against M/s. MCU by the letter dated 15/2/2013. The said recovery proceeding was challenged before the Hon ble High Court at Patna by filing the wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy sold and recovery were effected. However, he prays that for the balance amount of dues, the Department be directed not to proceed against them. 4. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the applicant has no locus standi as the show cause notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner long back in 2008 and the appeal was filed in the name of M/s. MCU in October, 2008.This Tribunal has passed order directing M/s. M.C.U. to deposit an amount of Rs.50.00 Lakhs which ultimately was reduced by the Hon ble High Court which also had not been complied by M/s. M.C.U. It is his submission that the present applicant has no locus standi even if they claim to have taken possession of their factory on 1st June, 2006 after expiry of lease, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
