9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). All the above three impugned orders have been passed on application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty as confirmed by the adjudicating authorities. 2. So far as Appeal No. 2 of 2013 is concerned, it is an appeal filed in respect of the appellant's Goa Unit and deals with the impugned order dated 8 April, 2013 of the Tribunal. This appeal was admitted on 3 July, 2013 by the Goa Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law "Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing pre-deposit of 50% of demand relying upon statements of suppliers, who did not turn up for cross-examination?" 3. The above Appeal No. 2 of 2013 was transferred to Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown to them. Besides, other employees of the appellant also admitted in their statement that no inputs were received on the basis of the invoices shown to them. On the basis of the statements of the Director and the employees of the appellant, the adjudicating authorities by three separate orders confirmed the show cause notices and also imposed equal penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant carried all the three orders in appeal to the Tribunal and also sought dispensation with the pre-deposit of duty, penalty and interest for the purposes of their appeal being entertained on merits. The Tribunal in its order dated 8 April, 2013 (being Appeal No. 2 of 2013) directed the appellant to deposit an amount of 50% of Rs. 4.49 Crores of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de. However, in view of statement of Director and suppliers at this prima facie stage, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. 9. One more fact to be noted is that the Tribunal in its order dated 8 April, 2013 (Appeal No. 2 of 2013) records that there is cash balance available with the appellant of Rs. 6.70 Crores in its books as reflected in its Balance Sheet dated 31 December, 2012. In these circumstances, this is one more reason not to interfere with the impugned orders dated 10 September, 2012 (two orders) and 8 April, 2013 passed by the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, all three appeals are dismissed. However, the time to deposit the amounts as directed by the Tribunal in its three impugned orders is extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
