ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides on the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the application filed for stay of duty and penalties imposed vide order No. V-Adj(Ch.54&55] 15-69/88, dated 16-3-93 by Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.
2. It is found that the present appeal has been filed against an order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. KKS(100) 100/M-VI/2002/9305, dated 3-8-2002 wherein the appellant had challenged the attachment of property under the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1975 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has found as –
“I have examined the issue carefully. From the records of the case I find that when the case was booked by the Preventive Staff, Shri Suraj Prakash Jindal was a partner of the said firm. Secondly, the adjudication order dated 16-3-93 passed by the Collector Central Excise, Mumbai-II was not challenged by the appellant before appropriate forum, till date. From the submissions of the appellant I find that there is no dispute against the subject adjudication order dated 16-3-93. The property of the appellant is attached as per due process of law under Rules 9 and 10 of Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1975 read with Not. No. 68/63-C.E. (N.T.) dated 4-5-63 for recovery of Govt. dues. Appellants contention that the property of other partners has not been attached cannot be the grounds for this appeal.”
3. Since there is no duty interest and or penalty to be determined in the proceedings impugned before me, there can be no order made of dispension of pre-deposit under the provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The present application is required to be rejected. Appeal to come up for hearing in normal course. Ordered accordingly.