ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Additional Collector of Customs, Chandigarh dated 1-2-1988.
2. At the outset a question arose whether the appellants had complied with the provisions of Section 129E.
3. The learned Counsel stated that in the impugned order a penalty was imposed, but a conditional stay was granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly they have already deposited Rs. 5000/ (out of Rs. 8000/- imposed) and they were covered by the stay order in respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 3000/-.
4. However when the Ld. Counsel asked to show the stay order the learned Counsel produced an order No. S/166/86-NRB, dated 4-9-1986.
5. It was however observed by the Bench that this order does not relate to the present appeal which arises out of Order-in-Original No. 3/S/88/Denovo dated 1-2-1988.
In response to a question of Bench the learned Counsel admitted that this stay order was passed on 4-9-1986 prior to the Tribunals final order No. A/301/87-NRB dated 25-6-1987; whereas the present appeal is against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 1-2-1988. When it was pointed out to the learned Counsel that the stay order of 1986 automatically ceased to be operative once a final order (No. A/301/87-NRB dated 25-6-1987) was passed, the learned Counsel drew attention to the CA3 form column 9 in which it was written that “penalty deposited Rs. 5000/- – Stay already granted for the rest of the penalty Rs. 3000/”. Hence the counsel was once again asked to show the stay order referred in this form but the counsel failed to do so and admitted that even after the de novo adjudication proceedings the order-in-original which was passed, imposed a penalty of Rs. 8000/- which has not been deposited as yet.
6. He also admitted that no stay application has been filed with reference to the above but argued, that since the matter was essentially the same and had merely come up for hearing before the Tribunal again as a result of de novo proceedings that is why he had shown and relied upon the previous stay order.
7. He further stated that the case relates to cassettes and they had requested that the department should produce some of the cassettes as samples in the Court.
8. The learned SDR stated that the cassettes have since been disposed of.
9. It was observed by the Bench that since the appellant has not been able to show that any stay order was passed with reference to the impugned order therefore the department was free to proceed in terms of the order in force. On the contrary since the appellant has not complied with the provisions of Section 129E and has not filed even a stay application, therefore, the appeal itself was liable to be dismissed. The Court also observed that it was neither fair nor proper on the part of the counsel to produce in the Court an expired order and try to show that it relates to the present case whereas it does not. The Court observed that the learned advocates are also officers of the Court and therefore it was expected that the facts are presented correctly before the Court.
10. The counsel expressed regrets and apologised.
11. I would have taken a more serious view of the aspect of the matter but for the fact that the counsel has ultimately apologised in the Open Court and assured the Bench that he will be more careful in future.
12. With the above observations, I dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E CA 62.