TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal on the ground that now the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs as duty and Rs. 2,50,000/- as penalty as per stay order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal should be restored. 2. The contention of the Revenue is that the Tribunal vide stay order dated 21-5-1998 directed the applicant to deposit the above mentioned amount. Against that order the applicant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Others v. CCE, Bangalore Others reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 514 (S.C.) = (1999) 1 Supreme Court cases 231 and in the case of N. Balkrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in JT 1998 (6) SC 242. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector; Land Acquisition Anantnag Another v. Mst. Katiji Others reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185. 4. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and the same was rejected. Now the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs. 24,50,000/- in cash. The Hon'ble S.C. in the case of Kamala Devi (Smt.) Others v. CCE (supra), where the Collector of Central Excise directed the assessee to deposit the amount in the year 1990, allowed to deposit the amount in the year 1998. 6. Further we find that in the Central Excise Act, there is no limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In the present case as the appellant failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
