9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant, it would emerge that on combined liability of two periods of ₹ 8 crores, the appellant would be depositing ₹ 50 lacs only which cannot be held to be excessive in any manner. The quantum required to be pre-deposited would vary if the total demand increases - no substantial question of law arises - However, time period to make pre deposit extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - CEA No.7 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 26-2-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Bhattacharia, Adv. For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11A of the Act besides levying equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure A-6), the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the appellant also filed stay application. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.1.2014 (Annexure A-1) directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 40 lacs as a pre-condition to hear the appeal on merits whereas the Tribunal for the prior period vide stay order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-7) on the identical facts had taken a prima facie view in favour of the appellant and passed interim order of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lacs. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for the earlier year, the Tribunal had directed payment of Rs. 10 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all run counter to the principle laid down in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products 2000 (115) ELT 20 (SC). Therefore, as a course of equality before law, we direct the appellant to make deposit Rs.40 lakhs within four weeks from today and make compliance on 26.02.2014. We may add that an interim order has no precedential value and we are guided by the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Empire Industries 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC), Benara Valves Ltd. 2006 (204) ELT 513 (SC) and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC). 5. In the present case, the appellant has been required to predeposit Rs. 40 lacs on demand of duty and penalty of Rs. 3 crores which is about 13.33% which cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
