9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the stay order dated 5.8.2013. However, after considering the submission of the learned Advocate, we extend the period of compliance of the stay order by further four weeks - Appeal restored. - E/40202/2013 - Misc. Order No.40249 & 40250/2014 - Dated:- 20-1-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M. Rajendran, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) ORDER Per P.K. Das The applicant filed this application for restoration of appeal dismissed by Final Order No. 40532/2013 dated 5.11.2013. 2. By Stay Order No. 41954/2013 dated 5.8.2013, the applicant was directed to make a predeposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and report compliance on 14.10.2013. The applicant filed an appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant submits that there were no provisional assessment in any period and as such, the question of the withdrawing the same does not arise. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the adjudication order had recorded that the applicant withdrew their application seeking provisional assessment and assured that after finalization of annual accounts they will produce details of cost construction. It is also seen from the adjudication order that the applicant had not furnished the documents as assured by them. We also notice that Deputy Director (Cost) opined that Cost/Unit shown against Sl.No.20 with particulars cost of production of goods disposed should be taken for determination of cost of production for levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any period. He also submits that the Central Excise registration was surrendered in May 2008. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the Tribunal after considering the facts of the case in detail held that the limitation aspect would be looked in detail at the time of hearing the appeal. He submits that the Tribunal already observed that the appellant gave an undertaking to produce the cost of production certificate, which was not submitted, which is a clear case of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. He further submits all these facts had already been recorded by the Tribunal in the finding and therefore there is no ground for modification of the stay order. 8. We agree with the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
