AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harish Tandon, J.—The order dated August 18, 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), East Regional Branch, Kolkata, disposing of an application seeking more time for securing the compliance of the order by which an application for stay and/or waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty confirmed, is assailed in the writ-petition. The order of the CESTAT was passed as far back as on October 7, 2013 directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the duty demanded which nearly goes to Rs. 9 lakhs and odd. The petitioner seeks extension of time to deposit as there is a winding-up proceeding initiated against the petitioner by a creditor of the company and the secured creditor is also taking steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (SARFAESI).
The Company Judge passed an order of winding-up of the company, which was assailed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench set aside the order and directed the rehearing of the winding-up petition by the Company Judge.
A Special Writ Petition was filed against the order of the Division Bench and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to agitate all the points before the Company Judge as agitated before the Supreme Court. The order of the Division Bench was passed before the order disposing of an application, seeking waiver of the pre-condition deposit was passed.
The aforesaid fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and is expected to be agitated before the CESTAT. Though the prayer made in the miscellaneous application is restricted on modification of the said order but in effect the petitioner is seeking a review of the said order. It is apposite to say that the party should not be given indulgence to seek review in the guise of the modification/clarification and/or recalling.
Though the respondent says that there is no provision for review but this Court finds that the facts which were available to the petitioner at the time when the order for which the modification is sought, was passed, the party shall not be allowed to agitate the same. The proceeding must reach the finality and if it is permitted to be re-opened on such facts, there will be an uncertainty and would amount to judicial chaos.
The petitioner strongly submits that facts enumerated in an application, has not been considered by CESTAT at the time of passing the impugned order.
This Court does not find that the CESTAT has committed any wrong in arriving at an ultimate conclusion. The writ-petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.