9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demanded amount within 2 months and to furnish security of immovable property for the remaining 50% within 2 months from the date of the order so that the Tribunal may hear the petitioner's appeal on merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly with an observation that in case the petitioner does not comply with the said order the appeal of the petitioner would be dismissed. 2.Certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner filed an appeal before the CEGAT, New Delhi. Alongwith the appeal an application for stay was filed seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of the demanded duty. This application was rejected by the CEGAT and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks. The order was made on 12-5-1993. The petitioner challenged this order in this writ petition. In the petition the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the proper officer the duty demanded or the penalty levied : Provided that where in any particular case the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Collector (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not arise out of Section 129E. 5.We are of the view that this provision was not noticed while making the order on 1-2-1994 for whatever reason. The statutory right of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority is denied to the petitioner by a wrong reading of the provision. Accordingly, we recall our earlier order and at the same time set aside the order of the CEGAT dated 12-3-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
