TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue from the petitioner, since the year 2008 and today, even no appeal is pending questioning the liability and only application for restoration of appeal is pending and twice the restoration application has been dismissed by the appellate authority. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we do not find any reason to stay the demand - Decided against assessee. - W.P. (T) No. 407 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2013 - Prakash Tatia, C.J. and Jaya Roy, J. Shri Binod Poddar, Sr. Advocate, Somak Basu, Piyush Poddar, Ms. Amrita Sinha and Darshana Poddar, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C. (I.T.) and Amit Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal observed that the applicant is not serious to pursue their application. Again one more application has been filed for restoration of appeal being S.T. Appeal No. 134 of 2008 and that application is pending before the Tribunal. 3. Now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 2-7-2012 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner s appeal being S.T. No. 134 of 2008 on the ground that subsequently, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 593 (S.C.) observed that clearance of COD cannot be a just reason for preferring appeal by public sector units. Therefore, according to learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic sector unit and its appeal has been dismissed for no fault of the petitioner and its restoration application is pending before the appellate authority. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the public sector undertakings are not above the law, nor above the citizen and in this matter, the order was passed against the petitioner-assessee long back and its appeal was dismissed as back as on 19-12-2008. For the reasons best known to the revenue, they did not choose to recover the amount which should have been recovered after the dismissal of the appeal and for want of any interim order from any Court of law, it was the duty of the revenue to recover the amount. 9. Revenue is due from the petitioner, since the year 2008 and today, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
