https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42864 The case involved the rejection of an appeal by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Section 129 of the Customs Act, concerning the seizure of goods suspected of smuggling. The petitioner's appeal for dispensing with the penalty deposit was dismissed due to non-compliance. However, the court granted a four-week period for the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount, failing which the appeal dismissal would stand. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with deposit requirements and offers the petitioner a chance to rectify the non-compliance within a specified timeframe. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:18:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42864 The case involved the rejection of an appeal by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Section 129 of the Customs Act, concerning the seizure of goods suspected of smuggling. The petitioner's appeal for dispensing with the penalty deposit was dismissed due to non-compliance. However, the court granted a four-week period for the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount, failing which the appeal dismissal would stand. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with deposit requirements and offers the petitioner a chance to rectify the non-compliance within a specified timeframe. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42864