9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. Along with their appeals the appellants also filed their respective applications purporting to be under Section 129E of the Customs Act for waiving the mandatory requirement to pre-deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the first appellant and Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on the second appellant. After hearing both sides the Tribunal vide its stay orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CEGAT within three months from today, the appeal of the petitioner will be decided on merits, otherwise not." It appears that still not satisfied with the dismissal of the writ petition and extension of time by the Delhi High Court, the appellants again moved their C.M. No. 5525/94 which was rejected in limine by the Court by its order dated 13th July, 1994. The said order is reproduced below : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the learned SDR. After hearing both sides the Bench rejected the said prayer of the appellants for extension of the time and ordered for the listing of the case for today, making it clear that if on the said day there is no information on record as to the compliance of the terms of the stay order passed by the Bench read with order of the Delhi High Court the appeal will be dismissed for non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, ld. SDR drew our attention to the said order dated 21st July, 1994 and submitted that the appeals be dismissed for non-compliance. 4. Admittedly, the appellants have not complied with the stay order as modified by the Delhi High Court as aforesaid. It is settled law that mere filing of the appeal or SLP does not amount to stay. In the instant case, as aforesaid, sufficient time was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
