9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. Shri Arun Chopra, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The background to this application is as follows. 2. The applicant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a demand for duty of Rs. 67.16 lakhs approx, and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on it. The Tribunal heard and passed ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been made to comply with the order which permitted deposit in instalments. No instalment has been deposited. Noting further that the show cause notice for dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F has been issued earlier, it dismissed the application and also the appeal for non compliance with the provisions of Section 35F. 4. When the applicant's second modification application was he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal [reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1017]. 6. We are unable to accept the ground of financial hardship. This ground has been argued at least thrice. We do not find it possible to hold that, because four years after the stay order passed the applicant's financial position has improved, the appeal must be restored. Doubtless the Gujarat High Court has held in Hussain Haji v. Union of India [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the applicant says that the settlement with the bank, as a result of which the applicant's liquidity has considerably improved (which is the bedrock of this application) took place in May, 2001. We would then have expected that the applicant would have deposited some further amount of the balance amount as evidence of its bona fides. This has not been done. In these circumstances, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
