9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd., a copy whereof has been placed on record, it is apparent that the controversy involved in both the cases was identical. In the order passed in the case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd., the Tribunal has not discussed on the aspect of financial hardship. The learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to point out any notable difference in the case of the petitioner and in the case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd. Under the circumstances, the above referred decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana (1993 (11) TMI 230 - SUPREME COURT) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in discriminating between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that against an order-in-original dated 19th September, 2013 passed by the second respondent confirming duty demand of ₹ 5,10,37,989/- with interest and equal amount of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the petitioner went in appeal before the Tribunal under section 35B of the Act along with an application under section 35F of the Act seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. By the impugned order dated 26th March, 2014, the stay application came to be partly allowed by directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 1 crore within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order and to report compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the said assessee. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461, to submit that similar treatment is required to be given to similarly situated persons and, hence, the Tribunal was not justified in discriminating against the petitioner and directing it to pre-deposit 10% of the entire amount. The attention of the court was also drawn to the order dated 2.7.2014 made by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S.A. Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. to submit that in the facts of the said case also, though the demand under the order-in-original was considerable, the Tribunal had directed the said assessee to deposit an amount of ₹ 15 ,00,000 /- only. It was sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, has rightly observed the issue involved is a highly debatable one and needs to be gone into detail and having found as a matter of fact that the assessee was not having any severe financial hardships has thought it fit to impose some conditions. It was submitted that in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 being just, legal and proper, does not warrant interference. It was submitted that in the subsequent order dated 14.7.2014 passed on the modification application also, the Tribunal has duly considered the facts of the case and has found no reason to deviate from the view taken earlier. Under the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pharma Ltd. was in any manner not similarly situated to the petitioner when it was the specific case of the petitioner that identical controversy was involved and that the petitioner was similarly situated to the said assessee. On a perusal of the show-cause notice issued in the case of the petitioner as well as in the case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd., a copy whereof has been placed on record, it is apparent that the controversy involved in both the cases was identical. In the order passed in the case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd., the Tribunal has not discussed on the aspect of financial hardship. The learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to point out any notable difference in the case of the petitioner and in the case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
