TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elayed by 41 days and one of the applications before us seeks condonation of this delay. The remaining applications before us seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts of Customs duty demanded by the original authority. 2. When these matters came up before us on the last occasion, the learned Jt. CDR raised a preliminary objection. Referring to the provisions of Sections 128A, 129A and129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and relying on the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's judgment in the case of Mohd. Fariz and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2010 (260) ELT 29 (Ker) and the Tribunal's order in Dewas Die Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal - 2000 (116) ELT 663 (Tri), the learned Jt. CDR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly question before the Tribunal was whether pre-deposit was required or not. The Tribunal has chosen to go into the merits and decided the appeal on merits also. This should not have been done." On this basis, with the concurrence of both sides, their Lordships remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. In the Civil Appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision in the case of Alnoori Tobacco (supra), again the Hon'ble Supreme Court found fault with this Tribunal by observing that the Tribunal, instead of considering the relevant aspects, proceeded to decide the assessee's appeal on merits in their favour without examining the propriety of dismissal of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed against two separate orders-in-original. The learned Counsel has explained these circumstances to our satisfaction. The delay is therefore condonable, particularly when the plea is not opposed. The COD application stands allowed. 6. The stay applications filed by the appellants in the two appeals claim prima facie case on merits and pray for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The learned Counsel for the appellants reiterates the averments contained in these applications. The learned Jt. CDR opposes these applications by submitting that the appellants had not even stated only reason before the Commissioner (Appeals) for waiver and stay under section 129E. After considering the submissions, we are of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the above pre-deposit to be made by the assessee. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.40 lakhs was required to be deposited before 17.4.2009. In the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it was also notified that the case on merits would be heard on 20th April or 21st April, 2009 at 12.30 p.m., subject to pre-deposit. It was also made clear therein that, in the absence of evidence of pre-deposit, the appeal would be dismissed ex-parte. The party did not make any pre-deposit. Consequently, their appeals came to be dismissed for want of compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act vide Order-in-Appeal dated 24.4.2009, the impugned order. ....