9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER P.C. : Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, is the question raised in this appeal? The appeal is admitted on the above question and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. 2. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of switchgear products. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2011 the CESTAT while holding that the issue was a debatable one, directed the assessee to deposit the entire amount of duty confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. It is not in dispute that during the relevant period there was a decision of this Court in the case of Subhash Arjandas Kataria v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench. 5. In these circumstances, when the issue as to whether the 1977 Rules are applicable to the case of the appellant itself is in doubt and during the relevant period, the judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Kataria (supra) was holding the field, in our opinion, this is a fit case for granting waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order of the CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
