1989 (12) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bhatnagar, Member (T)]. - This is a Stay application filed by the Respondents. 2. At the outset, the learned Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of Collector(A). The respondents have neither filed an appeal on their own nor even filed a Cross objection. Under the circumstances, they are not an agg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder of the Collector (Appeals) and such a recovery would cause them undue hardship. Hence the prayer. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that in terms of Section 35-F, where an appeal has been filed and the person desirous of appealing was required to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied, could make an appropriate prayer for waiver of pre-deposit and it w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve is correct in pointing out that the stay application filed by the respondent was in fact not maintainable in terms of Section 35-F in the aforesaid circumstances. 6. In view of this position, we dismiss the application. However, we accept the alternative prayer by both the sides for an early hearing of the matter and fix the appeal for hearing on 19-2-1990.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X