9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties before him. Merely because the petitioner has not pleaded any financial hardship, it would not follow that the amount of duty and/or penalty adjudicated by the lower authority has to be pre-deposited for the purposes of hearing of the appeal on merits. Thus quash the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-I and remand the matter to him for fresh disposal of the stay application after considering the submission of the petitioner. - Writ Petition (L) No. 2886 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2012 - J.P. Devadhar And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr. Vidhyadhar Apte with Ajay Joshi Respondent Rep. by : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly JUDGEMENT 1. This petition under Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Ltd, were satisfied on merits. For the aforesaid purposes reliance was placed upon Project Authority Certificate issued by M/s. Oil India Ltd. that the said goods are required for petroleum operations under International Competitive Bidding and also exempted from payment of basic custom duties and additional custom duties by notification no.21/02-CUS dated 01.03.2002. Besides, the petitioner also contended that the notice is time barred. d) Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I by an order dated 30.03.2012 negatived the petitioner's contention and confirmed the show cause notice dated 08.04.2011 demanding Excise Duty of Rs.34.94 lacs and also imposed an equivalent penalty. e) Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside as it is in the breach of natural justice. This is for the reason that the submission made by the petitioners were not considered and no prima facie view with regard to the petitioner's contention is recorded in the order before directing the Petitioner to predeposit an amount of Rs.35 lacs. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Counsel for the Revenue reiterates the order dated 18.10.2012 and submits that no interference is called for as the petitioner had not pleaded any financial hardship. 5. We have considered the submission. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Apte that the order dated 18.10.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit of Rs.35 lacs is non-speaking order. The impugned order does not consider and/or ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
