9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.70 within a period of two months from the date of the order and report compliance thereof. They have deposited only Rs. 25,000/- and not complied with the order fully. The appeal was therefore, dismissed for non-compliance as they had not report compliance on 31-3-1994. Thereafter they have filed restoration application No. 852/97 and in that application, the learned Counsel had pointed out that the Government had issued an exemption under Section 37B of the Act and hence the stay order has to be modified and the appeal to be restored. The Tribunal at paras 4 5 of the Miscellaneous Order No. 525/97, dated 15-10-1997 passed the following orders : We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The learned Advocate stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and likewise in the case of Western India Enterprises Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 46. She points out that the appellants had over-draft facility from the bank, however, the same was utilised for business purposes. In this regard, she produced bank statements and correspondence. 4. The learned SDR points out that they did not pre-deposit the amounts for more than 8 years in the matter and the appeal had been dismissed on one occasion for non-compliance and later the Tribunal refused to restore the appeal till such time the amounts are paid. The appellants have not deposited the amount immediately and took their own time. He therefore, submits that in these circumstances, there is no bona fide and the Tribunal should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scretionery power to restore the appeal. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the stay order was passed on 29-7-1995 directing the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1.25 lacs within a period of two months. The appellants had deposited only Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, the Tribunal after due consideration rejected their appeal for non-deposit. The appellants did not pre-deposit the amounts at all from the date of dismissal 29-7-1993 till 27-5-1998. This delay is required to be considered as to whether the appellants have bona fide reasons in not depositing the amounts. They have filed Miscellaneous application contending that the Govt. had issued Notification under Section 37B and on that ground sought for rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
