2010 (4) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. 2. The background of this case is consequent upon order of adjudication passed on 15-4-08 by Id. Commissioner levying penalty of Rs. 8.00 lakhs against the Appellant, the appellant came before the Tribunal and the Appeal was registered as Appeal No. 599/08. The stay application was registered as 1801/08-Cus. Such stay application was disposed by the Tribunal in terms of order dated 18-11-08 directing the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- within six weeks and to make compliance on 2-1-09.. When there was no compliance, appeal of the appellant was dismissed by order dated 2-1-09. When the matter stood thus, the appellant went before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in appeal registered as CEA/14/09. Such appeal was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch, 2005 and from 10th March, 2005 to 16th March, 2005. When the matter was called out on 16th March, 2005, it appears that there was confusion amongst the counsel as to whether Mr. Shaikh was to represent the matter on whether Mr. Malkan was to represent the respondents. Ultimately, Mr. Malkan has addressed the Court, but it needs to be noted that he was neither ready with the facts nor the law and during course of hearing, the Court had to wait till he obtained instructions in the matter from the officers present in the Court. In this context, one can do no better than reiterate what the Apex Court has observed in relation to such a situation in case of K.L. Pavunny v, Assistant Collector (H.Q), Central Excise Collect orate, Cochin, 1997 ....