9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irecting the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) to dispose of restoration application dated 1.5.2006 for restoration of the appeal preferred by it under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Rods and CTD bars of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-deposit of the duty and interest. The 1st respondent by an order dated 21.11.2000 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- within a period of one month. Since the factory has been seized under Panchanama dated 8.10.1998, it could not fulfill the pre-deposit and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Earlier, when 2nd respondent levied duty for the period after 1.11.1998, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re amount, which the petitioner was required to deposit as a condition for hearing an appeal has already been deposited. In somewhat, a similar case, the Supreme Court in Makharia Traders V. Collector [2003(156)E.L.T. A269], after considering the fact that the petitioner deposited the entire amount as required for preferring an appeal has set aside the order of dismissal and directed hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
