9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of demand. - E/2163/2008 - 133/2010-EX(PB), - Dated:- 15-2-2010 - Dr. C. Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri Monish Panda, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sumit Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T) (Oral)]. - Heard both sides. 2. We find that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Deputy Commissioner for early hearing of the appeal is premature as the stay application filed by the appellants is yet to be decided and the appeal can only be taken up for hearing after the stay application is disposed off and the appellants comply with the direction, if any, contained in the stay order. Moreover, the said application wrongly states that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or settlement of the present dispute with the Revenue Department. From the deliberation of the Committee on Disputes, we find that the said Committee has not been able to come to any conclusion as to whether the case is in favour of the appellants or in favour of the Department. The Committee has merely allowed the appellants to approach the Tribunal in view of disputed question of facts and law involved. This clearly indicates that the appellants do not have a clear cut prima facie case in their favour in the opinion of the Committee. (ii) The learned Advocate Shri Monish Panda is unable to explain clearly the use of the impugned goods and the chemical reactions that take place in the process of using the impugned input. He is not conver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rule 57D which applies when an amount of input is contained in any of the waste, refuse or by-product would have no application in this case. Consequently, the case law relating to interpretation of Rule 57D would prima facie have no relevance. (v) The ground of limitation argued by the learned Advocate is prime facie devoid of merit. On the one hand, he claims that the appellants have disclosed all the details to the Department but he is unable to show any particular reference under which details of the impugned input used in the final product have been furnished. On the other hand, the appellants have claimed in writing that no dutiable input is used for the purpose of manufacture of sulphur. Hence, the stand taken by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ravi Gupta's case - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 3 (S.C). It is an established principle of law that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. When prima facie it appears that the demand is well founded, it would be desirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Certainly, there can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. The appellant failed to bring out its case, as to whether denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens' faith in the impartiality of public administration, for giving interim relief. 6. Having giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
