9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 praying for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount and for stay of recovery thereof. That application was disposed of by the lower appellate authority as per Interim Stay Order No. 28/2001 dated 7-3-2001, whereby the assessee was directed to deposit the penalty amount within two weeks and to report compliance on 19-3-2001. The Interim Stay Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken by the assessee to the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in a writ petition which was disposed of as per Order dated 19-3-2001 which reads as under :- The Interim Stay Order dated 7-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs Central Excise, Jaipur, is the subject matter of this writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellate authority did not appreciate the fact that the Modvat credit of Rs. 6 lakhs which was alleged to have been taken in excess by the assessee in their RG 23A part-II had been debited in that account much before the show-cause notice was issued. The applicants have also stated that Interim Stay Order is biased, arbitrary and harsh. They have also raised a plea of financial hardships which have allegedly resulted from recession in the industry. Ld. Advocate Sh. K.K. Anand has reiterated these grounds and prayed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amount. Ld. JDR Sh. Hitesh Shah has opposed this prayer. 4. Before embarking on an examination of the above submissions, I think, I have got to satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the Supreme Court. 6. Having regard to the great importance of the issue, I am of the view that it has to be considered by a Larger Bench. I, therefore, direct the Registry to place this matter before the Hon ble President for the purpose of constituting a Larger Bench for dealing with the issue. 7. A final settlement of the referred issue may take fairly long time. During the interregnum, any departmental proceedings for recovery of the penalty amount are likely to prejudice the present applicants and put them to undue hardships. Therefore, I am inclined to invoke Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for the ends of justice. There will be stay of recovery of the amount till the issue is settled by the Larger Bench. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
