9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no violation of principles of natural justice, was not perverse. Appeal dismissed. - 19769 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2008 - Adarsh Kumar Goel and L.N. Mittal, JJ. [Order per : Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral)]. - This petition seeks quashing of order dated 18-9-2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal) requiring the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore towards duty and a sum of Rs. 10 lacs towards penalty within eight weeks, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. 2. Even though against the impugned order, statutory appeal is provided under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, on a substantial question of law, we have heard learned for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal are as under :- "5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. We are not able to appreciate the undue delay in submitting even an interim reply by M/s. Singh Overseas. Having received a show cause notice proposing a demand of a sum of over Rs. 2.5 crores, the fact that they did not file even an interim reply for such a long time looks rather strange. We have also been shown evidence to the effect that the personal hearing intimations were, in fact, dispatched from the office of the adjudicating authority. The claim of the learned advocate that on earlier occasions the communications have been personally served on the appellant and the personal hearing intimations were not served personally may not dese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further disposal thereof have been indicated. The claim that Shri Krishan Kumar returned Rs. 15 lacs to M/s. Singh Overseas is not corroborated as the same has not been reflected in the bank statements of M/s. Singh Overseas: there is no plausible explanation for Rs. 10 lacs said to have been received by the firm of Mr. Krishan Kumar." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal could not direct the appeal to be dismissed for non-deposit under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act. . 8. We do not find any merit in the submission. Section 129E of the Customs Act specifically mandates deposit. If deposit is not made, unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
