ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. Under Stay Order No. S/250-253/2000-NB(DB) dated 31.7.2000, the following order was recorded –
1. On a careful consideration of the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that the issue regarding availability of the beneit of Notification No 133/94 to the appellant company is a contentious one and it can be considered in detail only when the appeals are taken up for final hearing. having regard to the prima facie plea that most of the demand is beyond the period of six months and that the proviso to Section 11-A has not been invoked, we direct pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards duty within a period of 8 weeks from to-day. On such deposit, pre-deposit of balance duty and the penalties of all the four applicants shall stand waived and their recovery stayed pending the appeals. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in dismissal of appeal of M/s Digiflex (India) Ltd without prior notice. Compliance to be reported on 18.10.2000.
2. on pre-depositing Rs. 1 lakh towards duty within the period stipulated in that order, it was ordered that the penalties on all the four applicants shall stand waived and their recovery stayed pending the appeals. The terms of the stay order were not complied with. Shri J.M. Sharma, learned consultant, with Shri A.H. Khan, advocate, submits that this stay order provides automatic stay in favour of S/Sh Arun Khanna, Tilak Raj and K.M. Abraham even if the terms of the stay order are not complied with by M/s Digiflex (India) Ltd. We consider that the pre-deposit of the penalty amount was subject to the compliance with the terms of the stay order. As the terms of the stay order had not been complied with, the stay applications of all these three appellants could not be considered as being allowed by the Tribunal’s aforesaid order.
3. Shri J.M. Sharma submits that Shri Tilak Raj and Shri K.M. Abraham are employees and are persons of small means and are not in a position to pre-deposit any sum for hearing their appeals. He also submits that no specific role of these persons has been discussed in the impugned order.
4. As regards Shri Khanna, Managing Director, he submits that on merits he has a case.
5. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, submits that the main appeal has already been dismissed for non-compliance and thus on merits the case is against the appellants.
6. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty in respect of Shri Tilak Raj and Shri K.M. Abraham. As regards Shri Arun Khanna, Managing Director, he is required to pre-deposit Rs 70,000/- for hearing the appeal. After hearing Shri J.M. Sharma, learned consultant, we direct Shri Arun Khanna, Managing Director, to pre-deposit Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) for hearing the appeal. On depositing the above sum of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of six weeks from today, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance penalty amount shall be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. It is made clear that in case the above sum of Rs. 10,000/- is not deposited within the period stipulated above, then the appeal will be dismissed without any further reference to the appellants. To come up for noting the compliance and further orders on 28.6.2001.
7. The other two appeals will be heard on merits as pre-deposit in their case has been waived unconditionally.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)