TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (6) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (J)]. - On hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. We do so. 2. The appellants were maintaining and operating an Inland Container Depot at Kapodara, Surat. Customs Public Notice No. 11/96, dated 18-3-96 contained the following provisions - "(a) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... number of grounds. They also claimed that they were operating at a loss. The Commissioner did not accept any of the grounds but confirmed the outstanding amount, directing adjustment of the amount already paid. He in the preamble advised CWC that against that order an appeal could be filed against the order before the CEGAT. Hence, the appeal. 5. Section 36 of the Customs Act reads as follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct making for recovery of the salary of Customs Officers. In that situation, we hold that the disputed amount could not be termed as, "sum payable" in terms of Section 142(1) of the Act. 7. Shri Jain draws our attention once again to the preamble of the order as well as the clearance given by the Committee of Secretaries to the present appellants to persue this appeal in the CEGAT. We find t....