TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....di, S.D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - When the aforesaid appeals were called for hearing on 14-10-1987, none appeared for the appellants. The Court master however, brought to the notice of the Bench an application, dated 9-10-1987 from the learned advocate of the appellants for adjournment of hearing in the aforesaid appeals on the ground that "for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned advocate was present and he argued the stay applications. Having regard to the pleas advanced from both sides, the Bench was of the view that no undue hardship would be caused to the appellants/applicants if they were asked to deposit the entire amount of penalty imposed upon them. However, the Bench felt that sufficient time should be given to the appellants/applicants to deposit the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1987. As stated above, another request for adjournment for postponement on account of the ailing condition of the advocate has been received. The Registry has also brought on record a second application under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty from six of the appellants herein namely (i) Shri Chakkan Lal Jaiswal, Shri Satya Pal. (iii) Shri Suni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been seeking adjournment on account of his ailing conditions. Sufficient time has already been given to the appellants/applicants to deposit the amount of penalty imposed upon them in the impugned order. No report regarding deposit of such amounts has been brought on record. Second stay applications by six of the appellants received on 12th October, 1987, without indicating that their first appl....