9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice charges - The appellants had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for decision in the Supreme Court - To keep the matter alive on merits, the appellants have right to file an appeal before this Tribunal against the order - the request of the Revenue for non-maintainability of appeal cannot be accepted. Waiver of Pre-deposit – Payment of Interest – Held that:- The appellants have not claimed any financial hardship and the claim for financial hardship is a determining factor for deciding the quantum of pre-deposit and not for giving time for making pre-deposit - the contention of the Revenue that since no financial hardship was claimed by the appellants, ten weeks time was not required to be given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent in complete violation of the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act since the respondents are admittedly not at all aggrieved with the impugned re-quantification order issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise. He submits that an appeal is filed only by a person who is aggrieved by an order and as in the present case respondents have accepted the re-quantification and they have no grievance against the same they cannot file an appeal under Section 35B of the Act. He submits that filing of appeal tantamount to abuse of the process of law which should not be permitted by the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR also submits that in the Stay Order Nos. 55422-55423/2013 dated 14-1-2013 [2013 (291) E.L.T. 555 (Tribunal)] the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges is still pending in the Supreme Court and they have not accepted the order of Commissioner on merit but only on the quantification of duty part. Therefore their appeal is very much maintainable under Section 35B of the Act. As regards the issue of financial hardship, he submits that though there was no financial hardship claimed by them but some time is required to be given for making deposit of the amount by the Tribunal and therefore the time was rightly granted by the Tribunal to them. On the issue of interest as contended by the Revenue he undertakes to make deposit of interest within time frame given by the Tribunal in the impugned stay order. 6. After hearing both the sides, we find that the present appeal is filed by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue for non-maintainability of appeal. 7. As regards granting to time for pre-deposit we find that appellants have not claimed any financial hardship and the claim for financial hardship is a determining factor for deciding the quantum of pre-deposit and not for giving time for making pre-deposit. We therefore do not agree with this contention of the Revenue that since no financial hardship was claimed by the appellants, ten weeks time was not required to be given to them. In any case the appellant has reported to have deposited the duty within one week of the order and as such Revenue s grievance on grant of time of 10 weeks cannot be appreciated. Accordingly we reject this contention also. 8. As regards the payment of interest by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
