TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Company shall not dispose of any asset till finalisation of the appeal. 2. At the outset, the learned authorised representative for the applicant made it clear that this application was not for rectification of any error in making the stay order, but it was made on the ground of subsequent happening, which according to the learned authorised representative brought the goods under the control of the Central Excise authorities so as to execute the condition imposed under the Stay Order. 3. The stay applications were heard at length and decided by a detailed order made on 13-12-2005, wherein the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant, having bearing on the aspect of pre-deposit including financial hardship were duly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as to under what circumstances the Revenue authorities can realised the duties from the assets. 8. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for waiver of the amount payable under the impugned order. These applications are, therefore, rejected. The learned consultant for the applicants seeks eight weeks time for making the pre-deposit. 9. Time is granted upto 16-2-2006 for depositing the duty and penalty amounts payable under the impugned order, failing which the appeals will stand dismissed." 5. It has been contended before us that the financial position of the company and the Director is really bad. One of the Directors has paid up the penalty amount and he has not filed any application f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. The learned authorised representative contended that pursuant to the said authorization, the Superintendent had written a letter dated 3-3-06 requiring the applicants to deposit the amount and threatened that in case of failure, the said order/memorandum will be executed. Copy of the memorandum-cum-notice of demand was also forwarded to the applicant. Rule 9 of the said Property Attachment Rules, was reproduced below the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Authorized Officer) dated 1-3-2006. On the basis of this communication, it was argued that the purpose of securing the interest of the revenue by ordering detention of excisable goods etc. was best served by this order and therefore, order of interim stay was required to be modified by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the condition in the Stay order, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The subsequent proceedings for execution of the order stand on a different footing. It appears from the communication sent to the applicants that the Superintendent was authorised to detain the goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules. The condition of the interim stay order not being complied with, the appeals of these two applicants stood dismissed as contemplated by that order. Therefore, by virtue of subsequent processes for executing the order of the lower authority, the applicants do not get any ground to apply for modification of the interim stay. Reliance placed on behalf of the applicants on the decision of....