GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 25-7.1996 the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi while disposing of the stay and waiver applications of the petitioner directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000 within six weeks before considering the latter's appeal. The order shows that the waiver application of the petitioner was partially accepted by the Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) The Tribunal clearly stated in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the direction to deposit Rs. 20,000 is given after considering the financial position of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before us that the impugned order was passed stating wrong facts. For example, the counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the Tribunal wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that "The adjudicating officer in the impugned order mentioned that the applicant did not ask for cross-examination." The submission of the counsel is that the Commissioner in his own order Annexure-2 to the writ petition stated as follows: