9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore 29-11-1995 and report compliance on 30-11-1995. In the meanwhile, the appellants had challenged the order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Andhra Pradesh High Court did not modify the stay order but extended the time for pre-deposit. The matter was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court also did not modify the interim stay order of the Tribunal SLP Civil No. 10391/98, dated 22-9-1998 arising from writ petition No. 25539/97 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and dismissed the petition. 2. The Registry ought to have listed the matter before the Bench for knowing as to whether they have complied with the terms of the interim stay order referred to. However due to inadvertence and due to the change and bifurcation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n para 8(A)(III) as 19,3,620/- in appeal No. 5335/95 and in E5334/95 the amount in EA3 Form under column 8(A)(III) has been shown to be as follows : Rs. 19,37,620.00, Rs. 33,00,320.50, Rs. 22,66,840.00 4. Thus as shown from the above working out an amount more than Rs. 74,04,124/-. 5. The appellant had engaged a Sr. Counsel in the matter for addressing arguments in the stay application. After detailed hearing the matter had been reserved for orders. It was pronounced directing the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs by the stay order No. 164/95, dated 7-10-1995 [1996 (82) E.L.T. 302 (T)]. The order sheet of 6-2-1996 shows that the interim order of High Court was taken note of with regard to the extension of time upt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted them a hearing. It has been stated that the petitioner is entitled to raise the question of limitation before the concerned authority. 8. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the authorities have not heard them till date and that there has been no quantification of the sums. It is his contention that therefore the stay order is required to be recalled and the pre-deposit directions to be waived as it was not properly represented at the first stage. 9. Ld. DR submits that there is no compliance of the Tribunal's stay order which has been confirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the appeal does not survive and require to be dismissed for non-compliance. He points out that the appellants had only challenged the detention order before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the High Court and the Apex Court. The Revenue also did not move the matter. Till date the registry was not aware of these orders and they listed the appeal for final hearing in the usual way. It is noted today the ld. Sr. Counsel pointed out about the miscellaneous petition on 10-9-1999. The Court Master was directed to locate the papers. At the direction of the Bench, the Court Master and the Registry were able to locate the paper and they have brought the same for hearing as a miscellaneous application. 11. We have considered the submission made by both the sides and we are of the considered opinion that the appellants themselves had quantified the amounts as per the show cause notice which were issued to them. The ld. Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
