9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Mr.Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate ORDER CM No.9753/2013 in CUS A.C.15/2013 and CM No.9972/2013 in CUS A.C 17/2013 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.9754/2013 in CUS A.C.15/2013 and CM No.9973/2013 in CUS A.C 17/2013 (for condonation of delay) These are the applications for condonation of delay of 44 days and 41 days respectively in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs" 2. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 12.4.2012 disposed of applications for waiver of pre-deposit filed by the two appellants and the Company M/s Shree Polymers Private Limited. Operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under: " We further note that in such cases of clandestine activities, the true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pendency of the appeal. The said deposits are to be made by the appellants within a period of 8 weeks from today." 3. This order was made subject matter of challenge in Customs Appeal No.14/2012, M/s Shree Polymers vs. Commissioner of Customs and the order of the Tribunal was modified with the following directions: "We have considered the submissions. The Tribunal was informed that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the latitude and time granted. Consequently, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2012 dismissed the appeals filed by Rajneesh Sharma, Sunil Jain as well as M/s. Shree Polymers Private Limited. The contention of the appellants Rajneesh Sharma and Sunil Jain is that their applications for pre-deposit were not disposed of by the earlier order dated 12.4.2012 and they were not asked to deposit any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection had been given to them to deposit the personal penalties vide order dated 12.4.2012. Their application, it appears, therefore, remained pending and were not disposed of. 6. In these circumstances, we answer the aforesaid question of law in favour of the appellants and against the respondents with a direction that the Tribunal will dispose of waiver of pre deposit applications and, thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
