1998 (3) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this common order. 2.Certain relevant facts alone need to be stated. They are - that the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 24th April, 1992 imposing a penalty consequent upon seizure of the goods. Aggrieved against the said orders the petitioners preferred their respective appeals before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). Along with the said appeals, the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Tribunal in refusing the request for substituting Cash Deposit by Bank Guarantee. The said two writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated 6th February, 1998 holding that the writ petitions have become infructuous on account of the dismissal of the appeal by orders of the Tribunal dated 9th January, 1998. 4.A perusal of the order dated 9th January, 1998 passed by CEGAT shows that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest of the Revenue. 6.In the instant case the petitioners have been granted relief under the proviso to Section 35F by the CEGAT whereby the petitioners were permitted to deposit 25% of the penalty within the timeframe and the petitioners having failed to comply with the said condition, the appeals have been dismissed. 7.The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., this Court is of the view that the matter requires to be heard on merits subject of course to certain conditions which may safeguard the interest of the Revenue keeping in view the period since the passing of the original order and from the date of that order almost 61/2 years have elapsed. 9.In the light of the above, both the writ petitions are being disposed of with a direction that if the p....