9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and as such, demand of Rs. 12,03,288/- was levelled against the petitioner by the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the adjudicating authority passed an order confirming the entire demand of duty and penalties. Held that – Appeal before Tribunal preferred belatedly and condonation of delay yet to be decided. Tribunal not available, to meet ends of justice, petitioner granted protection ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of Rs. 12,03,288/- was levelled against the petitioner by the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the adjudicating authority passed an order on 22-10-2001 confirming the entire demand of duty and penalties. 2. An appeal was preferred against the said Order-in-Original and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside that order and remanded the matter back. Thereafter, the Order-In-Original No. 2 "Addl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the respondent department not to initiate any coercive recovery much less take any action pending the hearing and final disposal of the stay application. Pending further hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lord- ships be pleased to stay the recovery initiated by the respondent Nos. 2 3. Ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted pending the admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted some protection against recovery upon his depositing an additional amount of Rs. 2 Lacs towards the demand within period of five weeks from today, till the delay condonation application is decided by the Tribunal and/or further orders are passed by the Tribunal. We are given to understand that the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,56,755/-. 7. This petition is, therefore, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
