2014 (2) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld undoubtedly result in the petitioner’s right to appeal being defeated. The Court does not see any overwhelming interest in denying the relief as there is no material on record to suggest that there was any mis-declaration to deny relief to the petitioner - impugned order to the extent it refuses the assessee’s request for waiver of deposit to the tune of Rs.34,77,62,926/-along with interest is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted alcoholic beverage; the assessment relates to the period from 4th May, 2001 to December, 2010. A differential demand duty was made by the Assistant Collector of Customs by the order in original dated 29.3.2011. That order was appealed and the Assistant Commissioner s order was eventually set aside. By a later order dated 16.4.2013 the Assistant Commissioner provisionally assessed the bills of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8% of the total demand of assessed liability i.e. 414.05 crores. Nevertheless the Commissioner refused to grant any relief to the writ petitioner who claims that this resulted in grave hardship as his appeal would not be considered at all. 5. The learned counsel for the revenue on the other hand contends that Commissioner acted within his rights to exercise his discretion having regard to the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X