2010 (1) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication of stay order, ld. Counsel for the applicant submits as under :- (a) The Applicants submit with great respect that they are constrained to make this application seeking for recall of the impugned Stay Order and be heard afresh after affording an opportunity to the Applicants on the following grounds amongst others which are urged without prejudice to each other. (b) The Applicants submit that the said Stay Order had been passed after hearing only the Respondent and with reference to the records but neither the Applicants nor their Counsel had been able to make any submission in that regard for appreciation and consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Thereby the Applicants have been 'condemned unheard' and violating the princi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts also rely on Rule 41 ibid, which grants power to the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. (g) The Applicants submit that the impugned Stay Orders would show that the Hon'ble Bench has only considered the evidence cited in the show cause notice dated 10-8-2007 and the said Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore but have failed to appreciate the following : (i)   The medical condition of the Applicant's counsel and the Medical Certificate dated 24-9-2009 issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon of Apollo Clinic, Bangalore. (ii) The submissions made in the Appeal Memorandum duly supported by voluminous documentary ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ex Corporation v. CCE, Indore [2001 (128) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. - Del.)] (b) Garrison Polysacks Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [2002 (143) E.L.T. 575 (Tri.. - Del.)] (c) Shubham Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Kandla [2007 (209) E.L.T. 303 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] for the proposition that the stay order passed on 8-10-2009 was an ex-parte order and the appellant/applicant has sought only one adjournment. He would also submit that the ratio of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2005 (186) E.L.T. 145 (Kar.)] would be distinguishable only on the ground that in that case, the stay petition was decided only after hearing the case, while in the instant case, the stay order is an ex-parte order. 4. L....