9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to deposit Rs. 22.00 lakhs and report compliance on 2nd July, 2012. As the Applicant, M/s Computech International did not deposit the directed amount, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit vide Tribunal's Order No.A-541/Kol/2012 dated 06.08.2012. The Applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the Stay Order dated 29.03.2012, which was also dismissed and consequently, their Appeal was also dismissed vide Order No.M-558/A-717/Kol/2012 dated 26.09.2012. The ld. Advocate submits that there was no direction to the Applicant-Director, Shri Ajay Kumar Kedia for depositing the amount, hence, dismissal of his Appeal on default in depositing the directed amount by M/s Computech In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt had dismissed their Writ Petition No.15505 (W) of 2013 filed by the main Appellant, challenging the order dated 29.03.2012 and 07.08.2012. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that this Tribunal while disposing the stay application filed by M/s Computech International and Shri Ajay Kumar Kedia, had passed the following orders : "Heard both sides. 2. The Applicants filed these Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,30,06,988/- confirmed against the Applicant No.(1) and penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs each imposed on the Applicant Nos.(1) and (2) respectively. 3. The contention of the Applicants is that they have already deposited Rs. 7,71,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Kedia, has not been directed to deposit the said amount and accordingly, his appeal should be considered independently, even though the Appeal of M/s Computech International is liable for dismissal for default. For the above reason, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the ld. Advocate for the Applicant. We agree with the ld. A.R. for the Revenue that the facts involved in the cases of Yusuf Dhanani and Haresh Suresh Deora, (cited supra), are totally different as in these cases, no direction was given to the Director of the Company for pre-deposit. Besides, we find that M/s Computech International has un-successfully challenged the order of predeposit before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
