9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The present application is for modification of the Stay Order No. S/493/WZB/Ah bad/07 dated 24-4-2007 by which the appellant was directed to deposit part amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as against the duty liability of Rs.1.05 crores and personal penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs. The above deposit was directed to pay prima facie o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore-III v. McDowell Co. Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 145 (Kar.), the Tribunal has no power to modify the stay order. 4. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, we expunge the above quoted line in the order and proceed to consider the financial position. At the outset, it may be mentioned that being declared a sic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of dues when finalized may be allowed to the appellant. The scheme was approved in 2004 and more than a period of three years has passed. As such, we are of the view that appellant should deposit the above amount of Rs. 25 lakhs (rupees twenty-five lakhs) within a period of twelve weeks from today and report compliance on 8th November, 2007. 5. The modification application is disposed of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
