9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. Appellants have filed application for modification of the stay order No. S/18-23/WZB/AHD/2009 dated 6-1-2009 requiring them to deposit 50% of duty amount demanded in terms of provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri J.C. Patel, on behalf of the appellants submits that the factory has remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extile Inds. Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T. 394 (Guj.)] and in Moolchand S. Shah @ Choksi [2009 (235) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.)] respectively in support of his contention. 4. We have considered the submission made by both the sides. While requiring the appellants to make pre-deposit, it was also observed that the Revenue had a prima-facie case against the appellants and the fact that the factory was closed was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The High Court also observed that Tribunal had addressed the issue of financial hardship also and had directed pre-deposit of 50% of the duty demand. In the present case also requirement of pre-deposit is only to the extent of 50% of the duty confirmed and penalty has been left out totally except for the Director and on his behalf no modification application has been filed but the ld. Advocate s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
