9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He reiterated the contentions made in the application for restoration of appeal. He pleaded that the amount has been duly paid at Rs. 4,34,896/- on 2nd August, 1994. He pleaded that the amount could not be deposited within the stipulated period due to financial constraints. He pleaded for the restoration of appeal. Shri B.K. Singh, the learned SDR who is present on behalf of the respondent pleaded that in view of the fact that duty amount has been paid, he has got no objection for the restoration of appeal. 2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants as a bona fide tax payer have paid the amount at Rs. 4,34,89 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the earlier Order No. 54/89-A, dated 10-2-1989. Accordingly we recall the earlier order dated 10-2-1989. Now coming to the offer of the learned Advocate for the deposit of Rs. 19 lakhs we order that the applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs by Thursday the 18th May, 1989 and further order that the applicants shall make a further deposit of Rs. six lakhs on or before 31st May, 1989. The applicants shall report compliance of this order to the Registry for the first payment of Rs. 19 lakhs before 23-5-1989 and for the balance payment of amount of Rs. 6 lakhs they may report compliance by 5-6-1989. In case the applicants fail to comply with the terms of this order the present stay order shall stand automatically vacated and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed for non-deposit of the penalty amount or duty demanded cannot be construed on the basis to mean that the Tribunal has no power to restore the appeal, which was dismissed for non-deposit of the penalty amount or duty demanded." In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause for not making the payment earlier. We set aside the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of provisions under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We restore the appeal to its original number. Shri Raju Ramchandran, the learned advocate made a prayer that when the Stay Order No. E/278/93-B1 dated 15-9-1993 was passed, the pre-deposit of the penalty amount was dispensed with. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
