9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retion and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 40 lakhs - taking note of the earlier order passed by this Court and the case of the appellant herein, this Court is of the view that the pre-deposit amount shall be reduced to ₹ 25 lakhs. Upon such deposit, the balance adjudged dues shall remain waived and recovery thereof stayed till the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal - Partial stay granted. - C.M.A. Nos. 3247-3250 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri C. Saravanan, for the Appellant. Shri Xavier Felix, CGSC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The assessee seeks admission of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the said order dated 16-3-2011, the appellants have preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit. In the said application, it was contended that this Court in the appellant s own case, set aside the order of the Tribunal denying the credit on the above mentioned items and the said judgment was followed by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 40179/2013, dated 8-5-2013 [2013 (296) E.L.T. 513 (Tri.-Chen.)]. 5. The Department resisted the application by contending that the Final Order No. 40179/2013, dated 8-5-2013 passed by the Tribunal would not apply to the facts of the present case as the appellant utilized the iron and steel products only for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the orders passed by this Court in CMA No. 3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012 and the Final Order No. 40179 of 2013 passed by the Tribunal dated 8-5-2013. 8. We have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue, who has accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not foreclosed the issues raised by the appellant on the prima facie view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 8-5-2013, which is said to have been passed following the earlier decision of this Court in C.M.A. No. 3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012, which is distinguishabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
