9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upported with an affidavit was also simultaneously presented and the same was also transferred to the Delhi registry. When the Bench enquired from the appellant whether the said stay application was not heard by the E.R.B. at Calcutta, Shri R. Swaminathan, the learned Consultant[9] stated that since the advocate is Delhi based it was more convenient for the appellant to have the hearing of the stay application in Delhi and as such he requested that it should be heard in Delhi. Shri Swaminathan, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the appellant has pleaded that the duty in the present matter is Rs. 26,13,964/- and penalty is of Rs. 3 lakhs for the period from 1st April, 1986 to 7th August, 1989 and the show cause notice was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Honourable Calcutta High Court decision reported in 1990 (62) E.L.T. 290. Similar were the views in the case of M/s. Rubber Reclatem Company v. Union of India vide CM No. 5550/93 and CW 220/93, dated 30th July, 1993 of Honourable Delhi High Court. He pleaded that in case the appellant is desired to deposit the duty of Rs. 26,13,964/- and penalty amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, it will amount to undue hardship. He pleaded for dispensing of pre-deposit of the same. 2. Mrs. C.G. Lal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative pleaded that the part (I) price list was available and as such it was unnecessary for resorting to part (VI) price list in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. She pleaded that it is a common fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid provisions of the Act. Honourable Delhi High Court in the Rubber Reclatem v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 220/93, vide order dated 30th July, 1993 has observed as under : CM/5550/93 CW 220/93 The petitioner is a sick undertaking. In this view of the matter under Section 22 of the Sick Industries Act, 1985, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount so long as it remains sick undertaking. Similar view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in 1993 (62) E.L.T. 290. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to hear the petitioner s appeal without any pre-deposit. With this order, this writ petition is disposed of." The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
