9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by Adjudicating Authority, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 80 lacs so as to secure the interest of revenue and that delaying tactics are not adopted by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure A9.) raised a demand of duty of Rs.3,65,16,786/- from the Appellant under Section 11A of the Act out of which Rs. 20 lacs, already stands deposited by the appellant. There was also order to pay interest on delayed payment under Section 11AB of the Act and separate penalties on the two Directors and one Accountant of the Company. The learned Tribunal while considering the application for waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act and the appeal on merits, set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en detailed reasons while setting aside the order passed by Adjudicating Authority to seek fresh determination. The said order was dictated and pronounced by the Tribunal in Court and in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant. Any reservation, in respect of the remarks should have been raised before the Tribunal, at that stage. This Court is not a proper Forum to consider the expunction of remarks in these circumstances in appeal. A Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Sewa Sadan's case (supra), has held that under Section 35C of the Act, the Tribunal can issue such directions or impose such conditions as it considers appropriate, while deciding the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgments of the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances the Court held that since the appellant is seeking an opportunity of hearing, the condition of deposit is untenable. It is not a case, where the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in issuing such direction was commented upon. In Voltas Ltd's case (supra), the assessee has produced voluminous technical literature in appeal. The Tribunal formed an opinion that such technical literature was required to be taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. In the aforesaid case, the assessee has deposited Rs.50 lacs in terms of an order passed under Section 35F of the Act. The said amount was ordered to be retained pending adjudication on remand by the Adjudicating Authority. Again it is not a case where the jurisdiction of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2005. Till now, sufficient time has already been passed but the proceedings have not been concluded. Therefore, it is in the interest of all concerned that the proceedings are concluded at an early date. In respect of the last and fourth argument, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in pointing out that Rs.20 lacs deposited by the appellant earlier, should have been accounted for, while directing the appellant to deposit Rs.80 lacs. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, does not show that the said amount was taken into consideration while directing the appellant to deposit Rs.80 lacs. The argument that the appellant should be directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee, is again not tenable. The Hon'ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
