2005 (7) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al dismissed earlier for non-compliance with the stay order. The matter has a chequered history. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, vide which penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed upon the applicants herein under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules (erstwhile). The applicant is Director of M/s. Sunil Mills, which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er the appellant filed an application for restoration of their appeal. While disposing the said application, the Bench vide its Order M-997 and 998/WZB/2004/C-I, dated 23-11-2004, found that the stay order was not complied with till that date and as such the applications were rejected. 2. Now the appellants have deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and prayed for restoration of the appeal. Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt convincing explanation is coming forth from the appellant, for non-deposit of directed amount. Such a bad precedent cannot be set by allowing the appeal to be restored, inasmuch as it would be convenient for the appellant not to deposit the directed amount immediately after the stay orders of the Tribunal but to deposit the same immediately either before hearing of the appeal or after dismissal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X