TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Camp at Vadodara (for short Appellate Tribunal ) in Stay Application Nos. C/S 2870-2876/02-Mum in Appeal Nos. C/1310 to 1316/2002-Mum and the impugned common Order dated 4-12-2003 (Annexure-K) passed by the Appellate Tribunal in C/M/2229/02-Mum in C/1310-16/02-Mum, filed by the petitioner Indian Metal Traders. Special Civil Applications Nos. 4223 and 12396 to 12400, all of 2004, are filed by the petitioners Hindustan Ship Breaking Yard. All these petitions are arising out of the impugned common Order (Annexure-G) dated 13-11-2002 passed in Stay Application No. C/S 2877 to 2882 of 2002 in Appeal Nos. 1317 to 1322 of 2002 and the impugned common order dated 4-12-2003 (Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai on 2-11-2002. Another Bench of the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi also passed an order and remanded the case for adjudication to the Dy. Commissioner, Customs in the case of M/s. Tejas Sales Corporation, whereas the Appellate Tribunal, Camp at Vadodara, had passed conditional order of pre-deposit on 13-11-2002, therefore, both the petitioners M/s. India Metal Traders and M/s. Hindustan Ship Breaking Yard, filed separate modification Applications dated 11-12-2002 (Annexure-J in Sp. Civil Application No. 4240/04 and Annexure-H in Sp. Civil Application No. 4223/04 respectively). However, those two Applications dated 11-12-2002 came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by its common order dated 3-12-2003 (Annexure-K in Sp. Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout this order passed by other Benches of the Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, the petitioners had applied before the same Bench of Appellate Tribunal for modification of its earlier order. But, as stated earlier, their applications were rejected by the Tribunal by its common order dated 4-12-2003 on the ground that the order was in the nature of final order, therefore, when the appellants failed to deposit the amount then their appeals would stand dismissed and, therefore, there was no question of granting their Modification applications. 6. From the above it is clear that two other Benches of the same Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai had allowed, in all, 523 appeals filed by other different appellants and the cases were remanded to the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
