9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. There is a delay of about one year in filing the appeal. Shri Subhash Parakh, the Ld. Advocate, appearing for the applicants pleads that the applicants firm was a proprietary concern of one Mr. M.R. Shah. The impugned order was received somewhere in Sept. 1993. Shri Shah was in London in middle of the year 1993, till Feb. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase there is no dispute that the firm was a proprietary concern and the proprietor s illness also app-ears to be genuine, since he is reported to have succumbed to his illness. When the proprietor of the firm died and the matter is to be looked after by his legal heir, things would not be in normal condition, till they settle down. Hence we are inclined to exercise our discretion in condoning the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the property and make the payment towards the duty. However, they could not find ready cash of Rs. 1.14 crores to meet the duty demand. In the circumstances, he would plead for grant of stay and waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts or allow a longer period for deposit of the duty. 5. Ms. Charati Chavan, however, opposed the stay application and pleads that cash deposit of the duty amount is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
