2005 (7) TMI 548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)]. - This is an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to dispense with the pre-deposit order and to grant stay for recovery of the same. 2. The applicant has preferred an appeal challenging the validity, legality, and propriety of the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-2-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on, no penalty and interest leviable on them. This view is also supported by the decision in the case of M/s. Emmellen Biotech v. CCE, Mumbai-VII - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 172 (Tri.-Mumbai). The appellants submit that they have strong prima facie case for staying the impugned order and to dispense with the pre-deposit amount. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... do not see any evidence on records that the appellants have debited the amount after being pointed out by the Department. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have voluntarily reversed the credit. The appellants claim that there was no suppression of fact in not filing the Bill of Entry along with monthly returns as per new CENVAT Rules. 7. We find the appellants are a professionally m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X