9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.R. Maheshwari, G.M. (Commercial), for the Appellant. S/Shri R.K. Chowdhury assisted by B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The Applicant filed this Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 19,31,96,574.00 and penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Rules. 3. The demand was confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No. 69/2003-C.E., dated 25-8-2003 as amended, in respect of excisable goods manufactured in Shed No. 17. 4. Case of the Revenue is that the Applicant availed wrongly the benefit of Notification No. 69/2003-C.E. which provides for exemption from payment of duty in respect of the Unit located in Assam, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds adequately protected, and accordingly, directed the Tribunal to hear the Appeal without asking for any pre-deposit. The contention of the Applicant is that in view of the above Order of the Hon ble High Court, the Application may be allowed. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that as the Shed No. 17 was taken on lease on 6-1-2001 and the commercial production had started on 19-8-2002, i.e. after 28-2-2001, therefore, the benefit of the Notification is rightly denied. He also relied upon the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding suppression of facts and misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty and submitted that the demand was rightly made. 7. We find that in the Excise Appeal No. 132/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. In such a situation, the pre-deposit ordered by the learned Tribunal stands substantially complied with. We are therefore, of the view that the requirement of further deposit should not have been insisted upon by the learned Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to interfere with the order dated 5-5-2009 passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is allowed with the direction that the learned Tribunal will now hear the appellant s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong dated 23-11-2007 without insisting on any further pre-deposit. 8. In the present case also, we find that the amount of duty is already in deposit in Escrow Account. In view of the above Order passed by the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
