TRUEMAKE GINNING MACHINERY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.M. Dave, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.M. Chhaya, the learned additional standing counsel on behalf of respondent, appearing on advance copy. RULE. For the reasons that follow hereinafter, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today itself with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners prefered appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT) accompanied by applications seeking stay of demand. On 6 -9 -2004, CESTAT passed an order on the stay applications directing the petitioners to make a pre -deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs and report compliance on or before 10 -12 -2004. Admittedly, the petitioners complied with the said order and hence, the order of making further pre -deposit and recovery of further amounts was stayed in terms of the order dated 6 -9 -2004.

(3.) AS against that, Mr. R.M. Chhaya contended that the total demand outstanding as on 19th September, 2005 was to the tune of Rs. 4.93 crores and except for pre -deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs, the petitioners had not made any further payment in light of the stay order of the Tribunal. However, as in terms of second proviso read with first proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act, as the Tribunal had not been able to dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days, the stay order stood vacated and the respondent authority was entitled to pursue its remedy of recovery of outstanding dues in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Inviting attention to the conduct of the petitioner, it was submitted that equitable jurisdiction was being invoked by the petitioners, but they had failed to show that they were entitled to equity in the facts and circumstances of the case.