2000 (8) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. When the stay application was argued by Shri Parakh, Advocate for the applicants, it appeared that the issue being limited, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,000/- confirmed as duty and Rs. 1500/- imposed as penalty. 2. The issue before the Asstt. Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... merits, passed a routine formal order directing pre-deposit of 50% of the disputed amounts. Two applications praying for reconsideration were not heeded by the ld. Commissioner. The Commissioner without referring to these two applications and without giving any hearing to the appellants, dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Hence, the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rong calculation of the assessable value. In that case, if the Asstt. Commissioner were to accept their case under Section 11B, he could direct adjustment of the sums outstanding before paying the remainder of the refund claim. But where the assessee did not even file the refund claim the Asstt. Commissioner could not adopt the logic of the assessee. On this ground, we find that the orders are pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X