1989 (4) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot on 26-5-1988. The petitioners also applied for stay of the operation of the said order passed by the Collector, pending their appeal. The Tribunal by its order dated 5-10-1988, rejected the petitioner's request to exempt them from the requirement of depositing the duty and penalty amount determined by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication of Junagadh office reached Bombay office after the date of hearing and therefore nobody could remain present on behalf of the petitioners on 5-10-1988 before the Tribunal. When the Officer-in-Charge of the Bombay office inquired with the Registry of the Tribunal, he came to know that an order on stay application was already passed on 5-10-1988. It is petitioner's case that looking to the v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtunity of hearing before the Collector, it can be said that the petitioners had repeatedly asked for cross-examination of the said two experts. Moreover, looking to the contentions raised by the petitioners and the stake involved, it is not possible to believe that the petitioners remained absent on 5-10-1988 either because they did not think it necessary to appear, or because they were negligent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X