TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the applicants were dismissed by this Tribunal. In fact, the stay order for waiver of pre-deposit and directions to make pre-deposit were against the main applicant i.e. M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. and on the compliance by M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. the applicant could have enjoyed the waiver of pre-deposit but as M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. could not make pre-deposit, in that circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (J)]. - The applicants have filed the applications for condonation of delay as well as restoration of appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicants filed the appeals before this Tribunal along with the appeal of the main company M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. While entertaining the stay applications filed by the applicants, this Tribunal considered that if M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that there was no direction of this Tribunal against the applicants to make pre-deposit, therefore, the appeals cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Considering the fact that the reasons for causing delay has been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the delay in filing the applications of restoration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 are recalled and the appeals are restored to their original no. with the direction to the registry. Thereafter, to fix a date for hearing of the applications for stay filed by the applicants on merits. 6. With these terms, the applications for restoration of appeal are allowed. (Dictated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
