9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one. Subsequently out of the total amounts involved appellant has deposited an amount of ₹ 42 ,02,524 /- towards payment required to be made in cash. First appellate authority should have taken these aspects into account while ordering pre-deposit. A deposit of ₹ 58 lakhs ordered by the first appellate authority is, therefore, excessive. In the interest of justice, appellant is directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the appellant argued that the issue involved in the present proceedings is regarding the default in payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 2002. That for default in payment of duty appellant was required to discharge duty liability on consignment basis in cash as per Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002. That appellant cleared the goods on discharging duty li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty liability was discharged by the appellant by making cash payment then also from the date of paying duty from CENVAT account till the amount was paid through cash would attract payment of interest. It was his case that appellant should be made to pay certain amount before the appeals are remanded back to first appellate authority for consideration on merits. 4. Heard both sides and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of ₹ 2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with respect to these two appeals within four weeks from the date of this order and report compliance to Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) on verifying the payment of this amount shall restore these appeals to its original numbers in his office record and decide the same on merits. It is made clear that this Bench has not expressed any op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
