2003 (6) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K. Pardeshi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - By orders passed on 20-12-01 on the stay application filed by the applicant, the Tribunal directed a deposit of duty of Rs. 1 lakh out of amount of duty required to be deposited of Rs. 2.35 lakhs, such deposit to be made within a month from the receipt of the order and compliance to be reported on 21-2-2002. On that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd dismissed the appeal for not complying under provisions of Section 35F of the Act. 2. The application, which we have heard today is for recall of that order and for restoration of the appeal. The ground cited is that the reminder of Rs. 50,000/- had been deposited. The reason advanced for delay in payment is "disturbances in Gujarat in which some customers of the applicant, had been victi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cites decisions in which appeals have been restored. We are not aware of judgement of any court which says that an appeal is to be restored whenever any person deposited the amount. If that were to be accepted, there were little point in passing the stay order. The decision of the Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Ghosh v. CC [2002 (149) E.L.T. 954 (T)= 2002 (53) RLT 103] is based on the facts of that case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X