9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Pan Masala Valuation Rules, which would indicate that the period for which the machines were sealed, not being in production, duty liability therein, prima facie, does not arise. Keeping in mind overall position and that stay order was as an ex-parte order, the order needs to be modified suitably - there are revenue flowing in from the operations of the appellant as on 31.03.13 - Though ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was confirmed as Rs.75,55,915/-. 2. Ld. counsel would submit that the modification is filed for more than one reason. It is his submission that when the stay petition was heard none appeared and their request for adjournment was not accepted. Hence it is an ex-parte order. Secondly, the stay order was passed based upon the pre-deposit ordered by the coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... functioning. He would then take us through the balance sheet and submit that there was a severe financial hardships lies and there is a loss for the year ended 31.03.13. It also is his submission that the factory is closed. 3. Ld. D.R. on the other hand submits that the appellant should be put to some condition as the Hon ble High Court has also set aside the order of the Tribunal which directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were sealed, not being in production, duty liability therein, prima facie, does not arise. Keeping in mind overall position and that our stay order dated 08.04.13 was as an ex-parte order, we find that our order needs to be modified suitably. The financial hardships pleaded by the ld. counsel are also considered and we find that there are revenue flowing in from the operations of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
