9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 2 and 3 to refund the sum of Rs. 79,493.97. 2. It appears that the petitioner-company was called upon by notices dated 9th May, 1983 and 16th May, 1983 to show cause why they should not be directed to pay duty of Rs. 68,058.05, Rs. 44,086.49 and 46,843.40 towards molasses found to have been cleared by the petitioner during the month of March and April, 1983. The petitioner filed an objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 26th November, 1983 being passed this sum had been deposited by the petitioner with the Central Excise. The authorities did not comply with the direction given by the Collector (Appeals) and went on avoiding payment of the same on one pretext or the other; ultimately the occasion which led to the filing of the present writ petition and compelling the petitioner to seek the relief of mandamus d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the respondents. Till a stay order was obtained by the respondents, mere filing of the appeal before the Tribunal did not result in granting an automatic stay order in favour of the respondents. If the respondents so desired, they should have prayed for the stay of the order of the Appellate Collector, in the absence of which the actual position of the law appears to us to be that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
