9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : B. K. S. Raghuvanshi, Sr. Sc ORDER We have heard Shri Ashutosh Agrawal and Shri Anubhav Chandra for the petitioner. Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi appears for Central Excise Department. The petitioner is registered under the Central Excise Act and is engaged in manufacturing of 'Tents' nomenclated as 'Tent Extendable' falling under Chapter 63 of the Central Excise Tariff and had been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al under Section 35B before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which has been dismissed on 14.1.2003 on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in Ritzbury India P. Ltd. reported in 2007 (212) ELT 46 (Tri.-Chennai) and Sapta Shrungi Steel Rolling Mills P. Ltd. reported in 2008 (231) ELT 192 (Tri.-Mum.). It is submitted by learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, elastic tapes, zip fasteners and similar items used for stitching, fastening, holding or adornment of materials other than cotton. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in making tents the petitioner is using aluminium pipes and joints, which are cleared as tent extendable and are used for holding tents. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in Standard Niwar Mills v. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ening, holding or adornment of materials other than cotton is also mention4ed. We find that the aluminum pipes and joints cleared along with the tent extendable are used for holding of the tents. We also take note of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur in case of V.K. Brothers & Others in his Order-in-Appeal No.19-22/CE/APPL/KNP/2011 dated 28.1.2011 has taken a view granting the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire amount as a condition for hearing of the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals and that the order to deposit 25% of the duty is not only against the strong prima facie case but will also in the facts and circumstances of the case cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
