9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocates, for the Appellants. Shri V. Laxmikumaran, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.D. Jha, Member (J)] .-By the present application the applicants pray for dispensing with deposit of duty Rs. 7,70,581.91 and penalty Rs. 1 lac. We have heard Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate in support of the application and Shri V. Laxmikumaran, SDR for the respondent in opposition. Shri Bajoria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese propositions he relied on the following decisions : (1) Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. C. Balakrishnan and Others (37 ITR 267); (2) R.L. David Others v. Agricultural Income-Tax Officers Another (86 ITR 699); and V.N. Purushothaman v. Agrl. Income-Tax Officer and Another (ITR 14) Shri Bajoria when questioned by the Bench as to what would be the correct amount if the entire case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be gone through and prima facie case looked into. In that connection he also submitted that when the department applies for stay it was itself requesting that it had a prima facie case. Therefore, he submitted that it would not be proper for the department to urge that at the stage of stay application prima facie case should not be looked into at all. About the rate of duty in respect of whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
