9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Vijay Zutshi, SDR, for the Respondents. ORDER The present application is with reference to Stay Order No. C-1/1985, dated 4-1-1985. By the said order, the Bench directed the Applicants to pay in cash ₹ 60,000/- out of the total amount of ₹ 2,42,689.41 demanded from them as duty and furnish, to the satisfaction of the concerned Collector, a bank guarantee for the balance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no dispute about it as has been laid down by the majority decision of the larger bench in the case of Aminchand Payarelal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. Page [126] that the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act making the right of appeal subject to prior deposit of duty or penalty w.e.f. 11-10-1982 applies to all appeals filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal in Piya Pharmaceutical Work - 1983 E.L.T. 1671. East Regional Bench of the Tribunal also took the view in the case of Ferro Coatings and Colours Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1985 (5) E.T.R. 249] that pre-deposit of penalty or duty is attr- acted only in those cases where appeal is filed on or after 11th October, 1982. 5. In this case, the Revision Application was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd ancillary power given to the Tribunal in the discharge of quasi-judicial functions. 6. A perusal of the record shows that the appellants in the present case never requested this Tribunal to waive pre-deposit of the duty demanded or penalty levied. They have requested vide their application dated 27-11-1984 that stay against the recovery of duty amounting to ₹ 2,42,689.46 be granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercising its incidental and ancillary power. 9. The appellants have not brought to our notice any new facts which have come into existence after the passing of the stay order entitling them the grant of stay order unconditionally. All the contentions of the appellants were duly considered before passing the Stay Order, C-1/1985. 10. We, therefore, order that the appeal would proceed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
