2001 (1) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lined their stay application for the pre-deposit of the duty amount firstly and later on dismissed their appeal for non-deposit of the amount, vide order dated 17-6-1999 were rejected. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants has sought the recall of the stay as well as Final order of the Tribunal on the ground the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the stay application of the appellants without hearing them and as such the Order-in-Appeal passed by him dismissing their appeal under Section 35F of the Act was illegal and improper. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on. 1. CEAT Ltd. v. Union of India - 1995 (109) E.L.T. 336, Bombay High Court. 2. Jesus Sales Corpn. v. Union of India ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that order of the Assistant Commissioner and moved stay application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 24/25-5-1999 dismissed their stay application and directed them to deposit the amounts demanded within three weeks. It also remains undisputed that they did not comply with the stay order and Commissioner (Appeals) through order dated 17-6-99 dismissed their appeal under Section 35F of the Act. 5. The appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 17-6-99 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and also moved stay application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. Their appeal and stay application both were dismissed....