TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enge the order passed by CEGAT dated 11th January, 2000. 4.Pending appeal, to CEGAT, a stay application was moved by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the Company has been declared sick under the BIFR and in the circumstances, the petitioners were not in a position to pay the disputed duty amount. By the impugned order, the CEGAT accepted the contentions of the petitioners. By the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the amount back to the account of the petitioners on or before 7th April 2000. The petitioners are hereby directed to furnish bank guarantee in the same terms as it was given earlier before 14-4-2000. We may mention that in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Limited v. Union of India reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 505, the same course of action has been taken by this Court where the Court found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
