9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso filed 13 separate stay applications for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts adjudged against them, till the disposal of their appeals. 2. The stay applications came-up for hearing on 14-10-1999 when on request made by the applicants the same were adjourned to 11-11-1999. On 11-11-1999, when the matter was called, no one appeared for the applicants. The Bench noted that the matter had come-up earlier on 14-10-1999 when on request made by the applicants in the presence of one Shri Ved Prakash, the matter was adjourned for 11-11-99. As there was no reason for any adjournment, the matter was proceeded with and was dealt with on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative. Under Stay Order No. S/4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above they will be very badly hit financially. (B) An application of the appellants had been registered with B.I.F.R. and on this account alone the condition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty could be waived under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Reliance placed on High Court of Adjudicature of Bombay's Order in the case of Maharastra State Financial Corporation v. Benholm Stools Ltd. (C) The Statements relied upon by the adjudicating authority had immediately been retracted and the appellants has prima facie a strong case in their favour. 4. The misc. applications were heard on 23-6-2000 when Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate submitted that the statements relied upon by the Department have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 54, 55, 173C, 173F, 173G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Section 3 of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special importance) Act, 1957 evading thereby central excise duty of Rs. 51,89,271/- (BED Rs. 31,13,562.60 and AED Rs. 20,75,708.40), which appeared to be recoverable from them under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excises Act, 1944, read with Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excises Rules, 1944 and Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (goods of special importance) Act, 1957. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 51,89,271/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 51,89,271/- on M/s. R.K. Texcon (India) Ltd. A penalty of Rs. 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as so ordered is not deposited within the period stipulated above, then the appeals of these appellants/applicants will be liable for dismissal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises Act, 1944 wihout any further reference to them. No modifications is called for with regard to Shri K.C. Agarwal and Shri B.L. Gujar. However, further 3 months time from the date of receipt of this order is given to them to comply with the terms of the Stay Order with the same stipulation about default in depositing the said amounts, as already recorded above with regard to M/s. R.K. Texcon (India) Ltd. 9. The matter is posted for 2-11-2000 to watch the progress of pre-deposit and further orders. But for the above mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
