9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Standing Counsel takes notice. 2. The Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore (third respondent) passed an order on 21-11-1989 holding that the petitioner had wrongly utilised the Notification No. 208/83 and after notice to the petitioner, he held that a sum of Rs. 2,99,502.94 is payable by him as duty and he also levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Against the said order, the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o direct the Tribunal to have the appeal restored. 3. Though this writ petition is not properly framed, I am not inclined to dismiss the same on technical grounds. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not pay the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal on or before 31-12-1990. The question now is, whether any relief can be given to the petitioner in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that if the petitioner deposits a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on or before 31-7-1991, the appeal before the Tribunal shall stand restored and the Tribunal will dispose of the appeal on merits. Depending upon the deposit of the said sum on or before 31-7-1991, the proceedings of the 4th respondent-Superintendent of Central Excise dated 14-3-1991, shall stand stayed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
