SHRI SANJAY MAHESHWARI Vs. C.C. NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Stay Order No. S/72 -74/01/NB/DB dated 9.2.2001/14.2.2001, the applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs out of total penalty amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as a condition of the hearing of their appeal. For this, the period of 8 weeks from that date was given to the applicant. Subsequently, when the matter came up for ascertaining compliance, the applicant prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited by them The Bench considered the applicants' prayer and vide Misc. Order No.79/2001/NB/DB dt. 25.4.2001, took note of the factum of deposit of Rs. 1 lakh by the applicant and extended the time by another 4 weeks from that date to make the deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 28.5.2001. On 28.5.2001, applicant made further prayer for extension of time. The Bench vide its Order No. M.108/2001/NB/D dt. 28.5.2001 observed as under:

(2.) When the matter came up today for ascertaining compliance of the above order, Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate confirmed that the appellants have deposited only Rs. 50,000/ - out of the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs vide TR.6 dt. 7.6.2001. He makes a further prayer for extension of time to deposit the balance amount. Shri Rajeev Tandon, ld. SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that sufficient extensions of time have been provided to he applicant and he has not able to deposit the said amount in terms of the original Stay Order, in spite of such extensions. There is no justification for further extending the time to deposit.

(3.) We find that the Stay Order directing the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was passed by the Bench of CEGAT giving sufficient period to the applicant to comply with the Stay Order and thereafter two extensions have been given to the applicants to do the needful. In spite of giving a number of extensions, they have been not able to comply with the Stay Order which was passed after considering all the relevant pleas raised by both the sides and after appreciating the evidence on record. As such, we do not find any justification for further extension of period. Inasmuch as the Stay Order read with the subsequent Misc. orders has not been complied with by the applicant, the appeal is dismissed for non -compliance in terms of the provisions of Rule 129 -E of the Customs Act, (Announced and dictated in the Court)