9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellants have sought recall of the Final Order as well as the Stay Order i.e. Final Order No. A/1053 & 1054/99-NB(SM) and Stay Order No. S/480-481/1999-NB(S) both dated 29-9-1999. The grounds pleaded in the ROM application are as under - (i) the appellants initially sought stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 18-1-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The bare perusal of the file shows that the appeals of the appellants were dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18-1-1999 as they failed to comply with the terms of the interim Stay Order dated 30-7-1998 vide which they were directed to make pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. The dismissal of the appeals was made by the Commissioner, for non-compliance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple reason that in some other cases the Tribunal had taken the view that appeals against the order dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance with the stay order under Section 35F of the Act by the Commissioner, is maintainable. If the appellants were dissatisfied with the final order of the Tribunal, they could take out appropriate proceedings for getting the same set aside or quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
