9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of the company. The Tribunal was lenient enough in directing the appellant to deposit only Rs. 1 crore and waiving the remaining amount of Excise duty and penalty, which together with would amount to about Rs. 16 crores. Therefore, do not find any substantial question of law for consideration and interference in this appeal. The Central Excise Appeal is accordingly dismissed in-limine. And the appellant company is allowed sixty days time from today to deposit the amount. - Central Excise Appeal No.-30 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2013 - Sunil Ambwani And Bharat Bhushan,JJ. Petitioner Counsel :- B.P. Singh Dhakray,Shakti Singh Dhakray,Sushil Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- S.P. Kesarwani, Sr. S.C. ORDER 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commissioner of Customs Vs Sayed Ali and another reported in Manu/SC/0125/2011 of the Supreme Court dated 18.2.2011, to submit that the seizure was not made by the competent authority as the authority seizing was not the authority notified under the Act. The notification was made after the judgement in Sayed Ali's case on 6.7.2011. 5. It is submitted that in the present case, there was no evidence whatsoever regarding the suppression of production and clandestine removal, photocopy of which original was not shown to the appellant and hence it could not be taken into consideration for imposition of excise duty. The cross examination of witnesses was not allowed. 6. Sri Dhakray, submits that the company does not have financial means t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no provision in the law that it had to be issued after obtaining permission from the adjudicating authority. 10. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether the appellant had made out a strong prima facie case and will have any financial hardship in depositing the duty. In Benara Values Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 13 SCC 347 considered in Ketan V. Parekh Vs Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2012(275) ELT 3 (SC), it was held in paragraph no. 27 as under: "Two significant expressions used in the provisions are "undue hardship to such person" and "safeguard the interests of the Revenue". Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be placed by the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate conditions as required to safeguard the interests of the Revenue" 11. The CESAT h as recorded finding that there is prima facie finding of suppression of production and clandestine removal. The balance sheets thus will not reflect the true and correct financial position of the company. The Tribunal was lenient enough in directing the appellant to deposit only Rs. 1 crore and waiving the remaining amount of Excise duty and penalty, which together with would amount to about Rs. 16 crores. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law for consideration and interference in this appeal. 12. The Central Excise Appeal is accordingly dismissed in-limine. Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
