9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Non-compliance with Tribunal's order for depositing duty amount within specified time; Request for modification of order rejected; Failure to deposit any amount till date; Appellant's intention to challenge Tribunal's order before High Court; Reference to Baron International Ltd. v. U.O.I. case; Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Customs Act.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved a case where the appellants failed to comply with the Tribunal's order to deposit a specified duty amount within a set timeframe. The appellant's request for modification of the order was rejected, and despite an extension granted in the interest of justice, no amount was deposited by the appellants within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noted that more than six months had passed since the initial order, and the appellants had not taken any steps to comply, citing an intention to file a writ petition. However, the Tribunal emphasized that no writ petition had been filed, and there was no higher authority's order staying the Tribunal's directive. The judgment referenced the Baron International Ltd. v. U.O.I. case, highlighting that no application for review under the guise of modification could be entertained when the appellants lacked a prima facie case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, in conjunction with the Tribunal's previous orders.
|
