9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company appeared and when he was told by the Bench as to why the appeal be not dismissed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, he submitted that he has filed the present reference application and the questions proposed therein be referred to the High Court concerned. 3. The Bench heard both sides. Shri Sawhney took us through the reference application to emphasise that the questions proposed are questions of law and can be referred. He also added that the present reference application was filed on 20-2-1995 and the same is still pending. Shri Mohan Lal, JDR submitted that no reference application is maintainable against interlocutory order. That apart he also submitted that in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent reference application came on the board on 26-4-1995 before Learned Members other than the Members who passed the stay order and, therefore, the Registry was directed to put up the papers before the Hon ble V.P. (I/C) for a decision about the consitution of the Bench and the Hon ble V.P. (I/C) ordered that the reference application be listed for hearing before the same Members who passed the said stay order. It came on 4-8-1995, that is to say, within 6 months from the date of the filing of the present reference application but the appellants did not turn up to argue. Instead one Shri Satvinder Singh, Manager of the company appeared and requested for adjournment in writing stating that Shri T.S. Sawhney, Managing Director of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication and, therefore, we are not stating the arguments advanced by Shri Sawhney regarding the nature of the alleged questions of law. 7. In view of the above, the present appeal has become liable to be dismissed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - a course approved by the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Chand Chhotelal v. C.B.E.C. reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 178. More particularly earlier also the appellant was put on notice that failure to comply with the stay order may entail the dismissal of the appeal. However, undaunted by the consequence of the dismissal of the appeal the appellants have still not complied with the said stay order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
