9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat has to be exercised by the Appellate Tribunal subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose, so as to safeguard the interests of the revenue. Satisfaction of the Appellate Tribunal that the deposit of duty demanded would cause undue hardship to the appellant is the condition precedent for exercising the discretion so conferred under the first proviso to Section 35F of the Act. Demand stands reduced to ₹ 24,40,75,164/- after appropriating and adjusting the amounts reversed by the petitioner, we consider it appropriate to modify the condition imposed in the impugned order, dated 8-7-2013 and direct the petitioner to deposit 50% of demand - Partial stay granted. - Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 31-1-2009 and ₹ 13,58,183/- reversed on 1-10-2009 is appropriated and adjusted towards the above said demand made towards ineligible Cenvat credit. That apart, penalty of ₹ 31,11,00,000/- was imposed under Rule 15(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent (CESTAT) along with an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of all further proceedings for recovery of the amounts under the 2nd respondent s order, dated 29-1-2010. By order dated 8-7-2013 the 1st respondent granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of all further proceedings on condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of ₹ 18.65 crores within 12 weeks. The operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it ₹ 18.65 crores is assailed in the present writ petition before us. We have heard Sri E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jalakam Sathyaram, the learned Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise appearing for the respondents. One of the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that the amounts reversed by the petitioner i.e., ₹ 6,56,15,007/- on 31-1-2009 and ₹ 13,58,183/- on 1-10-2009 were not appropriated by the respondent No. 2 while arriving at the demand of ₹ 31,10,48,354/-. In response to the query put by this Court whether the said amounts reversed by the petitioner have already been appropriated while arriving at the demand of ₹ 31,10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to safeguard the interests of the revenue. Satisfaction of the Appellate Tribunal that the deposit of duty demanded would cause undue hardship to the appellant is the condition precedent for exercising the discretion so conferred under the first proviso to Section 35F of the Act. A perusal of the impugned order shows that after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case including the different categories of input services in respect of which the Cenvat credit was disallowed, the Appellate Tribunal thought it fit to grant waiver of pre-deposit subject to remittance of ₹ 18.65 crores which approximately comprises 50% of the assessed liability in respect of one of the disallowed components of Cenvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
