9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- plus interest and penalty. Thus, the order-in-original, which required him to pay equal amount as penalty and then interest with further penalty, has been substantially modified by the CESTAT. No error or perversity in the impugned order. As the dismissal of appeal is automatic and on account of failure to comply with said order of pre-deposit, the challenge to order dismissing the appeal for said failure also cannot be sustained. We find no substantial question of law arising in the appeal - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. 7 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2013 - B.P. Dharmadhikari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ. Shri Jaiswal, Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri Mishra, ASGI, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is already closed and taken over by the financial institution. The effect flowing therefrom is totally lost sight of by the CESTAT in the impugned order. As the impugned order dated 30-7-2012 shows total non-application of mind, it deserves to be set aside. 4. The appellant was given time till 15-10-2012 to comply with it and as the same was not met by then, consequently appeal itself is dismissed on 15-10-2012. As the order dated 13-7-2012 is not sustainable, the later order is automatically rendered bad and hence a case for remand is made out. He states that the appellant has moved an application under Section 35F of the Act and for its proper consideration, appeal needs to be restored. 5. Shri Mishra, learned ASGI appearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this background, it is further observed that under Section 35F of the Act, the other aspect to be looked into is to safeguard the interest of the Revenue and for that purpose to arrive at appropriate arrangement, Tribunal has to consider the material placed by the assessee on record to demonstrate undue hardship and then balance it with the interest of Revenue. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Universal Ferro Allied Chemicals Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (supra), in Para 10 has again made similar observations. The Division Bench has found that the appellant has to demonstrate a case for dispensation of pre-deposit wholly or partly, prima facie, and then he has also to demonstrate undu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
