JUDGMENT
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. By the Stay order No. 14/2001 dt. 2.1.2001, the appellants, have been directed to pre deposit a sum of Rs. 6,02,289/-k and report compliance by 11.4.2001. The appellants had pre deposited d a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and had filed an application on 24.4.2001 seeking for extension of time by three months on the ground that their Mill was running on job work basis and the conversion cost earned was very low by which they could not meet the day of the day affairs itself. They had also submitted that the job work party was also not giving the cotton continuously and the machines in the Mill were not fully utilised. They also submit that the yarn market was highly sluggish and collections also very poor and most of the spinning mills are very much suffering fro m due to erosion of working capital and poor margin. In view of the above submissions they had requested to sympathetically consider their case and to grant them another three months time to fulfil the conditions of the stay order.
2. After careful consideration of the submissions of both the sides we were of the view that the appellants have made out a case for extension of time by three months to pre deposit the balance amount and accordingly the time was granted by three months and the appeal was to come up for reporting compliance on 3rd August, 2001. On 2.8.2001 the Ld. Consultant took time to file application for modification of the order. The said Miscellaneous Application has now come up for due considerfation.
3. We have heard the Ld. Consultant who submits that the appellants are not in a position to comply with the terms of the stay order in view of the reasons already given. He also submits that they have filed an application before the BIFR. However, the Application is not supported by any evidence produced by the party. It is signed only by the Ld. Consultant. Therefore, the Ld. DR Shri Arumugam opposed the prayer and submits that as they have clearly stated that they are not in a position to deposit the amount and in the stay order it has been clearly held that the duty amount liable to be paid by them has not been deposited the appeal is required to be dismissed under Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962. Considered the submission made by both the sides. There is no reason to modify the order. The appellants have noted the stay order that they were required to pre deposit the duty amount of Rs. 6,02,289/-. In view of the non compliance of the stay order despite extension of time, their appeal is dismissed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)