SAMEER ISPAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 8 October, 2005, the CESTAT while disposing of a stay application filed by the petitioners, directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lacs. This Court by an order dated 8 December 2005 ( : 2006 (194) E.L.T. 26 (All.)) reduced the quantum of deposit to Rs. 5 lacs. The amount was to be deposited within a period of one month from the date of the order and the petitioners were to furnish an indemnity bond in receipt of the disputed amount. The Division Bench made it clear that if the petitioners fail to comply with the condition, the appeal would not be entertained by the Tribunal. The petitioners did not comply with the order of deposit but filed a modification application in the writ petition praying for a waiver. The application was dismissed on 21 April 2006. Thereafter, the petitioners moved a recall/restoration application, which was also dismissed on 12 November 2009. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners for non -compliance of the order of pre -deposit. The application filed for recall of the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for an extension of time to deposit the amount of Rs. 5 lacs which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24 May 2012. The petitioners now seek a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits having deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lacs allegedly in January 2012. The said relief cannot be granted by this Court in the present proceedings once the petitioners have exhausted all the available remedies in respect of the order of pre -deposit. That apart, another writ petition filed by the petitioners being Writ Tax No. 518 of 2012 (M/s. Sameer Ispat and Others v. Custom, Excise and Service Tax) against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners for non -compliance of the order requiring them to deposit Rs. 5 lacs has also been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17 April 2014.

(2.) IN these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction at variance with the direction which has already been issued by this Court earlier. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.