9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.] - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Customs Excise andGold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the `CEGAT'). Bythe impugned order the application filed by appellants seeking waiver of thepre deposit of duty amount of Rs.42,90,226/- and penalty of Rs.20,00,000/-confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. The High Court directeddeposit of Rs.42,00,000/- on or before 30.7.2002. Since the amount was notdeposited by order dated 7.10.2002, the appeal was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the CEGAT did notconsider the various questions in its proper perspective. The appellant wasentitled to the benefits of Rule 16(a) of the Customs and Central ExciseDuties Drawbac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing them total waiver of the pre deposit of the drawback amount as well as the penalty amount. However keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the financial hardship of the appellants as pleaded by the learned counsel, we direct the appellants to make pre deposit of the draw back amount of Rs.42 lakhs on or before 30.7.2002. On making this deposit, the requirement to pre deposit the balance drawback amount and the penalty amount shall stand waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. However, it is made clear that if the terms of this stay order are not complied with within the stipulated period, then their appeal shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 129B of the Act." 5. As noted above the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered by the High Court. The same was dismissed by the High Court on 25.3.2003. SLP(C ) No. 12435 of 2003 was filed before this court against the said order of the High Court. The same was dismissed on 28.7.2003. On 1.8.2003 the present Civil Appeal was filed. 7. The factual scenario as noted above clearly goes to show that the appellants adopted various dilatory methods and the present appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case has not been heard on merits, and the effect of Rule 16(a) of the Rules have not been considered. It is also submitted that some time may be granted to make the deposit. Both the pleas are without any substance. The question of applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
