2006 (8) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ners were required to make a pre-deposit as a condition precedent to the hearing of their respective appeals and time was given to them to make the pre-deposit. The matter was listed for compliance of the impugned order on 17th July, 2006 but learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that in view of the failure of the Petitioners to comply with the impugned order, the appeals filed by the Petitioners were dismissed. He makes an oral prayer that the order dated 17th July, 2006 may also be set aside in case the writ petitions are allowed. 3.After hearing learned Counsel for the Respondents in the matter, we find that the prayer made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is reasonable and ought to be considered. 4.In so far as the corre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving the entire amount of penalty imposed on Petitioner No. l. The entire duty demanded by the departmental authority was, however, directed to be deposited. 7.In this writ petition challenging the order passed by the CESTAT, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that adequate opportunity was not given to the Petitioners to cross-examine some of the persons who were involved in the investigation and the Tribunal had taken their statements into consideration as if they were cross-examined. 8.It is also submitted that Petitioner No. 1 has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1 crore out of a total duty amount of Rs. 2.75 crores imposed on Petitioner No. l. 9.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the imp....