9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. The appellant is required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 1,00,11,651/- along with interest under Section 11AB and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard both the sides in the matter. 3. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the earlier grounds of litigation before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. The plea raised by the learned Counsel that their defence is supported by enormous rulings has not been examined by the Commissioner. We find that the order is not a speaking order and is clearly violative of the Principle of Natural Justice . Therefore we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner to examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand. It is the submission that the entire issue is regarding demand of duty on E.O.U. who has undertaken the trading activities. 4. The learned SDR submits that the main issue which is under challenge is difference in the quantity between the figures in the balance sheets and RT-13s filed with the Department. The Chartered Accountant who conducted the statutory audit of accounts has admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Tribunal should have been considered before arriving at a conclusion, we find that the impugned order lacks clarity on this point. In view of this, we find that the applicant has made out prima facie, case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount involved in the matter. Therefore the stay petition is allowed by granting waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amounts and staying its recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
