TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied with by the appellant or by M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. It was a self operative order entailing the dismissal of the appeals in the event of the sum of ₹ 87,44,929/- not being deposited. The order had attained finality. - Even assuming that by the said order, the appellant herein was not directed to deposit the amount, the consequence of non-deposit was the dismissal of the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the appellant on 08.12.2011 by the Commissioner. The appellant filed appeals before the CESTAT. By the impugned order dated 13.03.2013, the CESTAT ordered as follows:- 4. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances the appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 87,44,929 within 4 weeks of receipt of this order and make compliance on 5th June, 2013. We make it clear that the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 13.03.2013, the appeal stood dismissed. Admittedly, the order dated 13.03.2013 was not complied with by the appellant or by M/s. Puneet Exports Inc. It was a self operative order entailing the dismissal of the appeals in the event of the sum of ₹ 87,44,929/- not being deposited. The order had attained finality. Even assuming that by the said order, the appellant herein was not direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above contention is well founded, it would require the order dated 13.03.2013 being modified or set aside. If the appellants were not heard on 13.03.2013, they were always at liberty to make an application for setting aside the order on that ground. They have not done so till date. It is important to note, however, that the Tribunal held that the appellant, if aggrieved, is at liberty to pursue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
