ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The prayer in the application is for modification of the order of the Tribunal under which the appellants had been called upon to pre-deposit Rs. 34,61,102/- on or before 29th April, 1997. The Tribunal passed this order when no one was present for the appellants inspite of an earlier adjournment having been granted and the adjournment on 17-3-1997 was sought for in a casual manner when the matter involved very high stakes.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has stated that the Department has also started recovery proceedings and the appellants’ production has been stopped by issue of detention memo dated 17th March, 1997. When the detention order was passed the order of the Tribunal was not available to the appellants as this order was passed on 17-3-1997. The learned Advocate pleads that the appellants are not able to operate the factory and effect any clearances for reason of this detention order. He has pleaded if the appellants as it is from 1991 onwards are operating under a rehabilitation package passed by BIFR. He is not able to however produce the balance sheets to reflect the present financial position to establish that an element of financial hardship is involved. He has shown to us the 1991 order whereunder sanction has been accorded for draft scheme for rehabilitation and which has been called ‘sanctioned scheme’. The sanctioned scheme has also not been produced before us.
3. We observe while modification is sought for on the ground that the appellants are under a rehabilitation scheme since 1991, the scheme itself has not been produced before us. This shows the casual manner of the appellants in which they are treating the whole matter. The learned lower appellate authority has also it is seen from the order gave them adequate opportunity to establish their case and in spite of that the appellants did not come forward to make out a case before him as per the directions of the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that an observation has been made by the Tribunal in the remand order that the learned lower authority should have obtained a clarification in regard to the authority who signed the certificate in question. The appellants had undertaken before him to produce this as is seen from the lower authority’s order and when the personal hearing was fixed, they did not appear before him. In such circumstances, when the appellant himself is so indifferent to his own interest, the learned lower authority prima facie has rightly rejected the appellants appeal. So far as the financial position of the appellants is concerned, nothing is brought on record to establish that the appellants will be put to financial hardship if they are called upon to pay the entire amount.
4. Taking into consideration the fact that the detention order is operative and the appellants are not able to clear the goods, we in modification of our Order No. S-126/97, dated 17-3-1997 order the appellants to pay the amounts as per our order at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) every month starting with May, 1997. The first instalment to be paid on or before 7-5-1997 and compliance reported by 15-5-1997 and subsequent instalments are also to be paid likewise by 7th of each month. After payment of 6 instalments of Rs. 5 Lakhs each, the last instalment will be for the balance amount. The detention order shall cease to operate as soon as the appellants pay the first instalment, on the appellants failure to comply with the terms of this order, appropriate order in accordance with law will be passed.
