TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their Stay Application Nos. E/2064/2000-NB and E/2065/2000-NB moved by them in their Appeal Nos. E/3575-3576/2000-NB (DB). 2. The appellants filed appeals against the common impugned order-in-original dated 31-8-2000 of the Commissioner. The appellant No. (1) was saddled with the duty liability of Rs. 1,54,42,723.43 along with equal amount of penalty while against appellant No. (2) duty amount confirmed was Rs. 89,38,564.08p with equal amount of penalty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act by the Commissioner. Along with those appeals, they also filed stay applications for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts in terms of Section 35F of the Act. Both those st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay order deserved to be rectified. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR has contested this contention of the Counsel and argued that the appellants never gave their residential addresses in their memo of appeals. The only address furnished by them was of factory and notices on their factory addresses were duly sent to them by the Registry but they deliberately did not put up appearance. He has also argued that the application under Rule 31A of the Customs Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure Rules) for rectification of the impugned stay order, is not legally maintainable for want of any patent error or mistake on the face of the impugned stay order. 5. We have heard both the sides, and gone through the record. 6. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing their residential addresses in the memos of appeals and stay applications. They could even after filing the appeals and stay applications send intimation to the Tribunal regarding the change of their addresses, but they did not do so. 7. The argument of the Counsel that he also did not receive any notice from the Registry regarding the date of hearing of the stay applications cannot be taken as gospel truth. He has not filed his affidavit to that effect. The perusal of the record shows that on the copies of the notices were endorsed to the Counsel on the address as mentioned in the power of attorney. 8. The Tribunal could not wait for an indefinite time for appellants to put up apperance. Their stay applications also could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
