TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (7) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (J)]. - This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Additional Collector of Customs, Chandigarh dated 1-2-1988. 2. At the outset a question arose whether the appellants had complied with the provisions of Section 129E. 3. The learned Counsel stated that in the impugned order a penalty was imposed, but a conditional stay was granted by the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he stay order of 1986 automatically ceased to be operative once a final order (No. A/301/87-NRB dated 25-6-1987) was passed, the learned Counsel drew attention to the CA3 form column 9 in which it was written that "penalty deposited Rs. 5000/- - Stay already granted for the rest of the penalty Rs. 3000/". Hence the counsel was once again asked to show the stay order referred in this form but the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant has not been able to show that any stay order was passed with reference to the impugned order therefore the department was free to proceed in terms of the order in force. On the contrary since the appellant has not complied with the provisions of Section 129E and has not filed even a stay application, therefore, the appeal itself was liable to be dismissed. The Court also observed that ....