9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PMahadevan, CGSC JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, directing them to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the duty, for proceeding with the hearing of the appeal under Section35-B of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. Joseph Prabhakar, learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y should pay 50% of the duty demanded. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the impugned order is appealable under Section 35-B. Relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another reported in (2010) 4 SCC 722, was relied upon before the Division Bench to contend that wherever the remedy of appeal is excluded, the statute would provide so expressly. But the Division Bench distinguished the said decision in paragraphs 37 to 42. 7. A careful scrutiny of the provisions of Section 35-B which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to maintainability is overruled. 9. Coming to the merits of the case, the specific case of the petitioner is that there were three Orders-in-Original. As against two Order-in-Original, the petitioner filed appeals to the CESTAT. The CESTAT granted waiver of 100% and also granted stay. As against the 3 rd order, in view of the amount involved, the petitioner had to go before the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
