9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee writ petitions arise out of a common set of facts and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order. 3. These petitions have a chequered history. Show Cause Notices ('SCNs') were issued to the Petitioners way back on 13th April, 2007 pursuant to the searches conducted at their godowns located in Raipur in Chattisgarh. The SCNs resulted in an adjudication order dated 22nd December, 2008 creating demands and levying penalties on the Petitioners. Along with the appeals, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT'), each of the Petitioners filed an application seeking interim orders including stay of the penalty and demand and waiver of the pre-deposit amount. By its order dated 2nd November, 2011, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three Petitioners for non-compliance of the previous order dated 1st September, 2014. 9. Statutory appeals were filed by the Petitioners before this Court. By an order dated 18th August, 2015 in each of the appeals this Court required Mr. Ravi Singhal and STC to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and SRTPL to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs on or before 30th September, 2015 for their appeals to be heard on merits by the CESTAT. It is required to be noticed that this was the second round of litigation before this Court. 10. Against the order of this Court, each of the Petitioners filed appeals before the Supreme Court. On 11th December, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Petitioners stating that it found no reason to interfere with the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CESTAT on 18th April, 2017: "Shri Arvind Nayar, learned Sr. Advocate submits that in the matter, the applicants want to move an application in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for clarification. For this purpose, he request for an adjournment. List on 22nd May, 2017." 15. Thereafter, the present writ petitions have been filed praying that this Court should direct the CESTAT to accept the entire amount of pre-deposit made by each of the Petitioners, notwithstanding the earlier withdrawal, and hear the appeals of the Petitioners on merits. 16. Mr. Arvind Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners sought the indulgence of this Court by pointing out that the Petitioners' appeals have not been taken up for hearing on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants with the Registry of this Court." 19. It is plain, therefore, that in the above case, the pre-deposit was made "within the time prescribed" by the Supreme Court. 20. As far as the decision in Kisan Gramodyog Sansthan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court in para 5 held as under: "It would be pertinent to note that immediately thereafter, the appellants have complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the pre-deposit of certain amounts." 21. In both the above cases, therefore, the pre-deposits were made within the extended time granted by the Supreme Court itself. In the present case, there has been a chronic delay in making pre-deposits far beyond the time gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
