Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (6) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtain sum and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Being dis-satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. However, the appellants instead of depositing the amount of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-imposed upon them, as required under Section 129E of the Customs Act, moved an application for waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty in terms of the proviso to the said Section. In the said application the appellants, inter alia, prayed that the operation of the impugned order be stayed by waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty imposed. The said application was taken up for hearing on 11-5-1987. Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, learned consultant appeared on behalf of the appellants and prayed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellants and Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, learned SDR appeared for the respondent. After hearing both the sides we dismissed the appeal with the direction that detailed order will follow. Here are our reasons. 3. At the time of hearing Shri Rajiv Garg, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants have already filed their Special Leave Petition against the said order dated 11-5-1987 in the Hon ble Supreme Court of India raising some alleged substantial questions of law and therefore any further hearing in the instant appeal be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Shri Rajiv Garg, learned Advocate also drew our attention to the fact that the appellants have also m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rement regarding the deposit of penalty or duty; but when sub-section (1) of Section 129 makes it obligatory on an appellant to deposit the duty or penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main sub-section or with any order that may be passed under the proviso the appellate authority is fully competent to reject the appeal of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129(1). That is exactly what the first respondent has done in this case. Accepting the contention of Mr. Trevedi will mean that the appeal will have to be kept on file for ever even when the requirement of Section 129(1) has not been complied with. Retention of such an appeal on file will serve no purpose whatsoever because unless Section 12 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants have already furnished the Bank guarantee for the amount of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as contended by the appellants. She further submitted that there was no such direction or order by the Hon bie High Court. She drew our attention to the interim order passed by the Hon bie Delhi High Court dated 10th February, 1987 to show that by the said order while issuing notice for March 12, 1987 the Hon bie Delhi High Court ordered that in the meanwhile the respondents are directed to release the goods of the petitioner against Licence No. 0438029 conditionally on the petitioner furnishing Bank guarantee for certain sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Collector of Customs concerned. She further submitted that in the absence of any st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filing of an appeal or SLP does not amount to stay of the order appealed against. There is no valid reason for keeping the hearing of the appeal in abeyance as prayed for by the appellants. Consequently, the application filed by the appellants on 10-6-1987 containing the said prayer is without any substance. It appears that the appellants are obviously resorting to delaying tactics. Consequently, the same is dismissed. 6. Since the appellants have not deposited the amount of penalty as ordered by this Tribunal on 11-5-1987, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the order passed by this Tribunal on 11-5-1987 under proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act - a result which has been brought about only b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates