9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. Instead of complying with the directions, the appellant indulged on dilatery tactics to avoid the deposit of the directed amount by filing modification applications time and again repeating the same grounds. The last of the modification application, the subject matter of the present ROM application, was dismissed for non-prosecution; but in the interest of justice, later restored, The appellant though did not appear on 05.06.2018, but it was again considered on merit and dismissed. There are no merit in the present application seeking recall of the order dated 05.06.2018 and to hear the appellant again. ROM application dismissed. - Customs Miscellaneous Application (ROM) No. 85164 of 2019 In Customs Appeal No. 1136 of 2012 - M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit as per the stay order dated 0412.2013. Again, instead of making deposit of the directed amount, the applicant had filed third application seeking modification on 13.10.2014, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 11.11.2014 by dismissing the same but allowing further four weeks time to comply with the stay order dated 04.12.2013. Another modification application was filed which was taken for hearing on 23.01.2017, but as the appellant did not remain present continuously to prosecute the application, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Later, the application was restored by this Tribunal at their request on 27.03.2017. The said fourth modification application was considered by this Tribunal on 05.06.2018 taking note of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interest of the Revenue is badly affected by entertaining such vexatious miscellaneous application. Further, he submits that since the appellants failed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit, the appeal should be dismissed. Further, the present application seeking restoration of fourth modification application is only a ploy to further delay in complying the stay order dated 04.12.2013. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that in the order dated 04.12.2013 while disposing the stay application filed by the various appellants including the present appellant, this Tribunal directed pre-deposit 10% of the penalty imposed on each of them. Thereafter, time and again, the appellant filed modifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
