9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Peeran, Member (J)]. This stay and appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 67/2000 (M-I), dated 26-5-2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai dismissing the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for not complying with the interim order of stay directing the appellant to pre-deposit the amount of Rs. 3,47,312/-. 2. Revenue had initiated proceedings for recovery of errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,47,312/-. Their application for interim stay was rejected and as they did not pre-deposit the amounts, the Commissioner after a detailed discussion rejected their appeal for non-deposit under Section 35F of the Act. 4. We have heard ld. Consultant Shri C. Chidambaram for appellants and Shri S. Kannan, ld. DR. 5. Ld. Consultant raised several pleas as pleaded in the appeal and the stay applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dify the order to the extent that appellants shall deposit this amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) as the Commissioner has not heard the matter on merits. On production of proof of pre-deposit of the amounts, appeal will be taken up on merits and decided by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall hear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
