2009 (3) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as notdeposited by order dated 7.10.2002, the appeal was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the CEGAT did notconsider the various questions in its proper perspective. The appellant wasentitled to the benefits of Rule 16(a) of the Customs and Central ExciseDuties Drawback Rules, 1995 (in short the `Rules') and, therefore, thedirection given by the CEGAT was not in order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the appellants have been adopting various dilatory     methods and have dragged on the whole matter for nearly eight years and no interference is called for in a matter of this nature. 4. A brief reference to the factual scenario needs to be noted. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt and the penalty amount shall stand waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. However, it is made clear that if the terms of this stay order are not complied with within the stipulated period, then their appeal shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 129B of the Act." 5. As noted above the time was given to deposit Rs.42,00,000/-on or before 10.7.2002. A writ petition was filed against the order of CEGAT i.e. Writ Petition No. 4053 of 2002. The High Court disposed of the writ petition extending the time for making deposit till 30.9.2002 and directed to file compliance before the CEGAT on 7.10.2002. On 7.10.2002 an application for extension of time was filed before CEGAT stating that the appellants were taking s....