https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119803 The Tribunal rejected the applications for modification of an interim stay order under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants' argument that no pre-deposit should be required as the goods were in the custody of the department was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the goods confiscated could not be treated as security for penalties under Section 129E, emphasizing the distinction between duty/interest and penalties. The appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, granting the applicants two weeks to make the deposit and seek restoration of appeals. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:35:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119803 The Tribunal rejected the applications for modification of an interim stay order under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants' argument that no pre-deposit should be required as the goods were in the custody of the department was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the goods confiscated could not be treated as security for penalties under Section 129E, emphasizing the distinction between duty/interest and penalties. The appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, granting the applicants two weeks to make the deposit and seek restoration of appeals. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119803