BAKUL CHEMICALS (P.) LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. Petitioners have challenged three separate orders passed by the CESTAT in following factual background.

(2.) Against the order in original passed by the Commissioner, the petitioners preferred an appeal before CESTAT. In such appeal, the petitioners also filed petitions for stay/pre-deposit waiver. Such petitions came to be dismissed by order dated 17.10.2011 for non-prosecution. The petitioners therefore had to deposit the entire amount confirmed in the order in original by way of pre-deposit in terms of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To secure compliance, the Tribunal granted time up to 21.11.2011.

(3.) On 21.11.2011, finding that there was no compliance and also that there was no representation on the part of the petitioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioners preferred restoration application which also came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 6.3.2013. In such order also, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner for arguing the stay petitions which opportunities were not availed.