LAWS(APH)-2012-11-130

P.M. TELELINKS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 21, 2012
P.M. Telelinks Ltd. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Excise for the respondents. The order dated 23 -7 -2012 passed by the fourth respondent -Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the CESTAT') rejecting the petitioner's miscellaneous application for recall of an order dated 11 -2 -2011, whereby the petitioner's Miscellaneous Application No. 37/2010 for recall of the final order dated 5 -4 -2012 has been rejected, is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE petitioner -Company is in the business of manufacture of Steel pipes, C.R. Strips and other accessories for telecommunications. By a show cause notice dated 20 -5 -2002 the petitioner was called upon to answer allegations of contravention of Rule 8 read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') wherein a demand for penalty; for recovery of interest; and penalty equal to the amount of the duty demanded was set out. By an order dated 29 -4 -2004 of the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, the demand for duty, penalty and interest as proposed in the show cause notice was substantially confirmed. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent, which authority by the order dated 13 -5 -2005 directed the petitioner to pre -deposit Rs. 7,50,000/ - within a month. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount as set out in the order dated 13 -5 -2005. Consequently by the order dated 24 -11 -2005 the third respondent rejected the appeal of the petitioner for noncompliance with the demand for pre -deposit.

(3.) SEEKING recall of the final order dated 5 -4 -2010 of the CESTAT (rejecting the appeal) the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application. This miscellaneous application was dismissed on 14 -6 -2010 for non -prosecution. The petitioner filed another miscellaneous application which was rejected by the impugned order, again for non -prosecution.