TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The application is for restoration of appeal dismissed earlier vide Order No. A/886/WZB/AHD/2009, dated 24-4-2009 for non-compliance with the stay order. 2. Learned advocate submits that the applicant had deposited the directed amount on 25-4-09 itself, but could not inform the Registry. In view of the above, I reca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of Rule 27 which provides for maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 4. I find that the challenge in the present appeal is to penalty. The entire duty now stands paid by the appellant. As laid down by Tribunal in above referred matter, Rule 25 is not invokable under such circumstances. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25. However, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
