9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Court : None appears on behalf of the respondents. No accommodation is prayed for. 2. This writ application is directed against an order dated September 24, 2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 in connection with an application for waiver of requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty in Appeal No. EV-335/2001. 3. A show-cause notice da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to consider the prima facie case as also the hardship of the petitioner-company. According to him, the learned Tribunal failed and/or neglected to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter. It is submitted by him that the show cause notice dated March 26, 1999 was issued beyond the period of 6 months. But in accordance with the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustrial and Financial Re-construction and the management of the petitioner-company was working under the scheme of BIFR. It had incurred loss of Rs. 34,73,98,436/-. It was evident from the profit and loss account and the balance sheet of the petitioner-company which were annexed to the above application. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also considered the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and Financial Re-construction but the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the above aspect nor the learned Tribunal took into consideration the question of financial loss of the company for arriving at a conclusion with regard to financial hardship of the petitioner-company. 9. In view of the observation made hereinabove, I find that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
