9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellants, in all the three appeals, have challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 16th January, 2006, whereby the applications filed by the three appellants seeking to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lac only towards pre-deposit for entertaining the appeals instead of Rs. 2.65 crores as directed by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs and M/s. Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd. were directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs towards penalty. When the learned Single Judge was about to reject the three petitions, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners and, in paragraph 4, thereof, it was stated that the petitioners were facing financial crisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants did not deposit the amount as required and, therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the applications by its order dated 12th September, 2005. Feeling aggrieved the appellants once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1515 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the Tribunal had not given adequate reasons in the order in dismissing the applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts in their affidavits it had directed the Tribunal to consider the offer of depositing Rs. 50 lakhs on the ground that the appellants were facing financial crisis. When the matter went to Tribunal it was realized that they had no financial difficulty and the Tribunal refused to accept the offer. The only error in the Tribunal's order was that adequate reasons were not given and, therefore, the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
