TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (2) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the affidavit of verification thereof, dated 21-12-1966 and the exhibits or annexures to the said petition and upon hearing Mr. Harashit Chakravarty, Advocate for the petitioner, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the said opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the orders, mentioned in prayer (a) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Board of Excise and Customs and by the Union of India respectively, for a period of three months from this date with liberty to the petitioner to apply for extension of the same in presence of the other side. 3.The petitioner, it is alleged, is a shopkeeper by occupation. By a memo dated 1st June, 1964 issued by the Customs Divisional Preventive Unit, West Bengal, the petitioner was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 129 of the Act and the petitioner was asked to deposit the same within a fortnight from date. The petitioner however thereafter made an application before the Central Board of Excise and Customs for dispensing with the deposit due to hardship. It appears however that by an order dated 14th of March, 1966 the petitioner's appeal was rejected for non-compliance with the provisions of section 129 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice. (2) The appellate order also is not an order in the appeal as the petitioner's application for dispensing with the deposit under section 129 had not been disposed of without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the appellate authority as to the sufficient cause for not making the deposit, the appeal was rejected. In his third contention Mr. Chakravarty contended before me t....