1998 (3) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). Along with the said appeals, the petitioners preferred applications under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for waiver of the precondition of deposit of duty which was subject matter of the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 25th July, 1996 allowed the miscellaneous applications on the condition that the petitioners deposit 25% of the impugned penalty within a timeframe. The time so fixed was three months from the date of the order and with a direction that the compliance shall be reported on or before 29th October, 1996. The petitioners appear to have filed applications for permission to pay the said amount by furnishing bank guarantee instead cash deposit. The sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oners were permitted to deposit 25% of the penalty within the timeframe and the petitioners having failed to comply with the said condition, the appeals have been dismissed. 7.The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal was not justified in passing an order of dismissal when it was informed to the Tribunal that the writ petitions were before the Court on the very same day, that is, 9th January, 1998. I cannot accede to the said contention for the simple reason that there was no order of stay of the matter before the Hon'ble Tribunal and more so when the timeframe fixed by the Tribunal for making the deposit had elapsed in October, 1996. 8.However, one contention that merits consideration is that solely on the g....