9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - C.M. No. 3475-CII of 2013 and CEA No. 8 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 19-3-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. C.M. No. 3475-CII of 2013 This is an application for condonation of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f demand of Rs. 3.3 crores when annual turnover of the Appellant is Rs. 9 crores? (c) Whether the impugned order is perverse and contrary to record? (d) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified to order to deposit when the Appellant has strong prima facie case on merits as well as financial grounds? (e) Whether grave and palpable injustice would be caused to the Appellant if the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 3.30 crores and also imposed penalty of an equal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the appellant also filed stay application dated 6.1.2012 (Annexure A-3). The Tribunal vide order dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure A-1) directed the appellant to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 2.75 crores as amount of duty out of total demand of Rs. 3.30 cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 25 lacs was deposited voluntarily during the pendency of the appeal. He submitted that the Tribunal be directed to hear the appeal without further deposit. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the amount as directed by the Tribunal was reasonable and justified. 5. The primary dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
