9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Shri R.C. Sankhla, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2.The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 16.56 crores and penalty of the equal amount and penalties were also imposed on employees of the applicants. 3.The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sony India Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 385. The appellant also relied upon the stay order in the case of M/s. Bigesto Foods P. Ltd. v. CCE dated 30-3-05 whereby a similar situation and following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sony India Ltd., the Tribunal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Tribunal in the case of Bigesto Foods P. Ltd., prima facie the applicant had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The Registry is directed to list these appeals along with Appeal No. E/825, 849-50/05/NBA. (Dictated pronounced in open Court on 4-5-2005) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
