9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they shall not dispose of the plant and machinery used by their subsidiary unit, we deem it proper that the interest of the Revenue be protected if the appellant is directed to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 50.00 lakhs instead of ₹ 1.00 crore as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today - Decided in favour of assessee. - C.M.A. No. 3313 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, for the Appellant. Shri P. Mahadevan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the assessee, is directed against the miscellaneous order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant and this fact has not been in dispute. Hence, the Tribunal was not inclined to modify the earlier order and accordingly dismissed the prayer made by the appellant. In so doing, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.) (Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on the decision in the case of ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.), held that providing securities cannot be equated with deposit of cash as far as Revenue interests are concerned. 3. Mr. K.S. Venkatagiri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously contend that apart from the financial hardship faced by the appellant, they have g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of final hearing. As regards the unconditional stay, the Tribunal held that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case for granting the relief. As regards the undue hardship and the balance of convenience, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the appellant was a joint venture company and their subsidiary M/s. S S Power Switchgear Equipment Ltd. was still working and utilising the machinery of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the entire materials which were placed before it, directed pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. l.00 crore as against the total liability of ₹ 3.91 crores. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as on date, the income of the company is less than ₹ 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
