9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami Vide this Tribunal's MISC Order No.40718/2015 dt. 6.5.2015, the appellant was directed to predeposit Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of 4 weeks and compliance was posted on 15.6.2015. Subsequently, the matter was fixed on 3.8.2015 and the learned Advocate Shri H.S. Hredai appeared and informed the Bench that they had filed a C.M.A. before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order she submits that the Tribunal order got merged with the Hon'ble High Court order. 4. After hearing from both sides, we find that this Bench vide Misc Order No.40718/2015 dt. 6.5.2015 ordered predeposit of Rs. 25 lakhs against total penalty of Rs. 52,56,555/- imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dt. 26.6.2015 in C.M.A. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad with relevant Notification No.43/2002-Cus. dated 19.04.2002 Notification No/91/2004-Cus. dated 10.9.2004 as applicable, upon redemption, if any allowed by the adjudicating authority. v) penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114A and 112 of Customs Act, 1962". 9. We find that the plea of the appellant that no penalty should be imposed under Section 114A is not correct in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble High Court's order, sufficient time was given to the appellant for compliance and the appellant failed to comply with the orders of High Court. Advocate's oral mentioning that they have filed a S.L.P against the Hon'ble High Court order is not acceptable as there was no stay against the High court order. Since the appellants have not complied the predeposit ordered which was u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
