TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, the condition of pre-deposit of penalties had been dispensed with. It appears that the appeals preferred by all the appellants had been dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order in view of the fact that M/s Bhairavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. had not made the pre-deposit of 50% of the duty. However, in case of other co-appellants who had earlier approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal by an order dated 14.02.2011, had restored their appeals by observing that the stay petitions of the applicants had been unconditionally allowed. The petitioner herein is similarly situated to the said applicants in the stay applications and therefore, was entitled to similar treatment on the ground of parity. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to be filed. All the stay applications came to be disposed of by a common order dated 07.07.2010 whereby, the Tribunal directed the co-appellant - M/s Bhairavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. to deposit 50% of the duty within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, subject to which the predeposit of balance amount of duty and entire penalty would stand waived during the pendency of the proceedings. As regards the co-appellants including the petitioner, who are brokers, textile consultants, recipients of raw material, high sea sellers, directors and employees of the company, the Tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon them, inasmuch as, it had directed M/s Bhairavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. to deposit a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that in the order dated 21.06.2010 made on the stay applications filed by the petitioner and other co-appellants, except for the direction to M/s Bhairavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. to make pre-deposit of 50% of duty, qua the other co-appellants, no direction to make pre-deposit had been issued. The attention of the court was further invited to the order dated 14.02.2011 made by the Tribunal in the case of other co-appellants, viz., Shri Sunil Semani, Shri Yogeshbhai Vaidya, Shri Nilesh Bansal and Shri Ilyas Kapadia whereby, the Tribunal had restored their appeals which were dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 read with stay order dated 07.07.2010. It was pointed out that the Tribunal in the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad earlier approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal by an order dated 14.02.2011, had restored their appeals by observing that the stay petitions of the applicants had been unconditionally allowed. The petitioner herein is similarly situated to the said applicants in the stay applications and therefore, was entitled to similar treatment on the ground of parity. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application for restoration made by the petitioner by holding that the stay granted in favour of the petitioner was conditional upon M/s Bhairavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. making the predeposit. Two similarly situated appellants could not have been treated differently by the Tribunal. Moreover, it is evident that there are two conflicting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
