TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner cannot be allowed to bypass the statutory remedy available to it. The right course is for the Petitioner to revive/seek restoration of its appeal before the CESTAT accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing such restoration application seeking recall of the CESTAT's order dated 21st August 2015. The question of the Court in the present petition interfering with the show cause notices which led to passing of the above adjudication order also does not arise. The question whether the amended Section 35 F of the CE Act will apply to the Petitioner's appeal will be decided by the CESTAT in accordance with law. It will be open to the Petitioner, if it files the restoration application in the CESTAT not later than te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed the CESTAT of the pendency of the present petition. The Petitioner requested the CESTAT that the appeal be kept pending till the final outcome of the present petition. That prayer was declined by the CESTAT by order dated 21st August 2015 holding that since the Petitioner has already approached this Court, the appeal was not maintainable since the Petitioner cannot avail two parallel remedies against the impugned order simultaneously. 4. The central plea of the Petitioner is that the mandatory minimum pre- deposit of 7.5% of the demand in terms of the amendment in Section 35-F of CE Act in affordable for the Petitioner. The specific prayers afford to make such pre-deposit, this Court should interfere and allow the following pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present petition challenging, inter alia, the adjudication order dated 21st April 2014. 7. In the considered view of the Court, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the statutory remedy available to it. The right course is for the Petitioner to revive/seek restoration of its appeal before the CESTAT accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing such restoration application seeking recall of the CESTAT's order dated 21st August 2015. The question of the Court in the present petition interfering with the show cause notices which led to passing of the above adjudication order also does not arise. 8. The question whether the amended Section 35 F of the CE Act will apply to the Petitioner's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
