9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to quash the order of the second respondent, dated 2-11-1992, in and by which the Tribunal directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of rupees ten lakhs towards the tax and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty and similar amounts in respect of certain others in respect of penalty, on or before 31-12-1992, as a condition for taking the appeal on file and hearing the same on merits. W.P. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in the application for waiver of pre-deposit was to direct payment of rupees ten lakhs towards tax and the other amounts as referred to earlier. After this order, on 30-12-1992 a petition was filed stating that the amounts directed by the Tribunal in relation to the penalty portion of the order of the first respondent had been complied with. It was, however, stated that the petitioner was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on 31-12-1992 itself. Secondly, it is argued that certain vital considerations were not taken into account before fixing the quantum of amount to be deposited by way of pre-deposit. Learned counsel, therefore, refers to a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 15-11-1993 in Collector of Central Excise, Madurai-2 v. Coronation Lit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order, dated 2-11-1992 made by the second respondent Tribunal. 4. The only further question to be decided is whether the petitioner should be given further time to make the deposit. On this aspect of the case. I have no doubt, in my mind that some indulgence should be shown in favour of the petitioner on the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
