2002 (1) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - Through this stay application, the appellants have sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 8,82,108/- and penalty of equal amount as confirmed on them through the Order-in-appeal dated 19-7-2001, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of branded c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wrongly held the same to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 6501.80 of the CETA. He has also argued that the demand is time barred. The appellants, according to him, have a very strong prima facie case for claiming total waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts. 4. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellants under Chapter Heading 6201 of the CETA as claimed by them, can be recorded. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the appellants have a strong prima facie case for claiming total waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty. 7. On the face of it, it is difficult to observe that the demand is time barred. This question also requires scrutiny of the facts and material b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X