ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. The perusal of the file shows that vide order dated 9.10.00 both the appellants were directed to made pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs each within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order for entertainment of their appeal for hearing on merits. But they did not make compliance with this order of the Tribunal rather their counsel sought extension for two months for making the pre-deposit of the amount and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2000. The compliance was ordered to be reported for today. today none has come present on behalf of the appellants and no proof of compliance of the stay order of the Tribunal dated 9.10.2000 had been also intimated by them personally or by their counsel.
2. The file further reveal that on 5.2.2001 the appellant moved an application for modification of the stay order dated 9.10.2000, on the ground that the appellants due to financial hardship, will not be able to make pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs each and in the alternative sought again extension of three months, but none has come present on their behalf to prosecute the present application. Even otherwise, I do not find any sufficient ground to allow the prayer of the appellants for modification of the above said tow orders or to allow any further time to them. the financial hardship of the appellants was considered by the Bench while passing the stay order dated 9.2.2000 and directing them to made pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs each imposed on them under section 112(b) of the Customs Act by the authorities below on account of recovery of gold of foreign origin valued at Rs. 4504491/- from them. Therefore, now again this very plea of financial hardship put forth by the appellants for seeking modification of the above said stay order of the Tribunal, cannot be entertained and considered. No further extension of time also deserves to be allowed to them, when already they had availed the extension and the perusal of the order dated 14.12.2000 shows that their counsel sought extension of two months and the same was allowed. This application for modification of stay order or in the alternative for extension of time is dismissed. Therefore, for having failed to comply with the stay order of the Tribunal dated 9.10.2000 even within the extended time, both the appeals of the appellants are ordered to be dismissed under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.