9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector and Director under Section 35F of the Act. The appellant did not comply with the terms of the stay order and therefore their appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of Stay Order No. 230/95, dated 1-11-95. The appellants had filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the stay order. However their petitions were not accepted by the Single Member Bench. Later they filed writ appeal in 1998. Their advocate on record Shri A. Jayachandran intimated the appellant by his letter dated 28-1-2002 that the appeal papers could not be traced and advised them to pursue the appeal in CEGAT by depositing the amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs as directed in the Stay Order. Therefore they deposited the amount and filed ROA No. E/59 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amounts in deposit should be accepted and delay in deposit was on account of the pending writ appeal and that the delay was not on their account but on the account of the court's delay. He submits that in the miscellaneous order there was a finding that there is no proof of filing appeal is not correct as the advocate's letter dated 28-1-2002 had mentioned Writ Appeal Nos. 67848 and 67849 of 1998. Non-listing for hearing is only due to non-tracability in the High Court and not with the advocate. Consultant submits that the present case is distinguishable from the facts of the Master Recording Co. case. He submits that the appeal be restored to its original number as they have complied with the directions of the stay order. 5. DR sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, however granting them liberty to file a fresh application after depositing the entire amounts. 7. Appellants have not complied with the said direction to pre-deposit the entire duty and penalty amounts but have moved a fresh restoration application stating that their grounds have not been fully considered and that the Master Recording Co. case is distinguishable and that there is no deliberate delay as in the case of Master Recording Co. and the delay was on account of the writ appeals not being disposed of. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions and notice that the Tribunal is bound to follow its own ratio as rendered in the case of Master Recording Company (supra). The appeals cannot be restored unless the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
