2008 (6) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sit amount as directed by the Tribunal. 2. It is the submission of the Counsel that the applicant had right to be heard and should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case on merits in view of the legal principle of audi altrum partum. It is the submission that the applicant could not be heard on merits, in the appeal filed by them before the CEGAT as their financial position was weak and they could not make arrangements for the amounts lo be deposited as was directed. It is his submission that during pendency of the case, the main partner who was looking after all the business fell sick due to cancer and succumbed to that after prolonged illness on  18-12-2003. It is the submission that due to his illness, the total bu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n that these payments are not voluntary payments but were adjustments of the refund, which is payable when they become due to the applicants. 4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. The Tribunal vide Stay Order No. C-II/645, 646/WZB/1999, dated 22-3-1999 [1999 (113) E.L.T. 814 (Tribunal)] directed the applicants herein as  under :- "Prima facie, we do not find any case for waiving deposit of duty demanded. The total absence of any documentary evidence showing purchase of goods of which value would not be less than Rs. 25 crores and the denial by the persons named by the applicant of sales goods prima facie go against the applicant. Applicant has not pleaded financial hardship. We,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal order dated 4-2-2002 (which dismissed the application for restoration of appeal) and stay of order-in-original No. 14/97 dated 28-11-97 and also raised the question of attachment made by the department for recovery of Government dues. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant sought to withdraw the same. The said request was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court. We find that the applicant herein has mainly contended that they had deposited almost Rs. 30 to 35 lakhs before the authorities and claims substantial compliance of the order of pre-deposit. As has been already reproduced by us in the above paragraphs, it can be noticed that the Bench directed the applicants to deposit the entire duty demanded and Rs. 3....