1994 (9) TMI 178 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with the stay order and penalty deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act.
2. Appeal for extension of time for compliance with the stay order.
3. Request for adjournment pending Supreme Court's decision on the matter.

Analysis:

1. The appellants failed to comply with the stay order issued by the Tribunal, which required them to deposit specified penalty amounts within a set timeframe. Despite not adhering to the order, they sought relief through a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, with an extension granted for depositing the amount. Subsequently, their application for further extension was also rejected by the Court. The Tribunal, noting the appellants' persistent non-compliance, refused their request for additional time and warned of dismissal if the terms of the stay order were not met, citing Section 129E of the Customs Act.

2. Following the rejection of their extension request, the appellants made a plea for an extension of time to comply with the stay order. This plea was contested by the learned SDR, and after hearing both sides, the Bench denied the request for an extension, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the previous orders. The case was scheduled for a hearing to determine compliance, with a clear indication that non-compliance could lead to dismissal under Section 129E of the Customs Act.

3. During the subsequent hearing, the appellants' counsel informed the Bench about the filing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Delhi High Court's decision not to extend the time for depositing the amount. The appellants requested an adjournment until the outcome of the SLP before the Supreme Court was known. However, as there was no interim stay granted by the Supreme Court and considering the appellants' failure to comply with the stay order despite multiple opportunities, the Bench rejected the adjournment request. The Bench relied on established legal principles that the mere filing of an appeal or SLP does not automatically imply a stay of proceedings, leading to the rejection of the appeals due to non-compliance with the stay order as per Section 129E of the Customs Act, following precedents set by the Supreme Court in relevant cases.

This detailed analysis highlights the sequence of events, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the appellants' persistent non-compliance with the stay order and penalty deposit requirements under the Customs Act.