PRAMILA HANDICRAFT Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the Petitioners Sri Saurabh Yadav and Sri K.D. Nag for the Respondents.

(2.) THE Petitioners have challenged the order of rejection of stay application by the Appellate Tribunal and have further prayed that till the disposal of the appeal, auction of the goods scheduled to take place, be stopped.

(3.) THOUGH lengthy arguments have been raised from both the sides that touch the merit of the appeal but we are of the view that in view of the observations made by the Tribunal that it did not find even, prima facie, case in favour of the Petitioners and good chance of success in appeal nor the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner and that it was not inclines to interfere with the adjudication order at the interim stage, while rejecting the application, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order so passed.