9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is seen that the Tribunal is consistently following the procedure of ordering 25% of the total demand in many cases. The grant of waiver of pre-deposit depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion is vested with the Tribunal to grant the same. Even assuming that the appellant had paid a sum of ₹ 27.00 lakhs, the same comes to only 17% of the total demand, which is not a substantial amount. Even the pre-deposit ordered by the Tribunal and the amount paid by the appellant, which comes to approximately ₹ 72,00,000/-, do not cover 50% of the total amount demanded. Since the appellant, at the threshold, did not show any documentary evidence showing prima facie case in their favour, much less financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.79 lakhs pending investigation, which has been appropriated in the order passed by the first respondent which is under challenge before the second respondent, Tribunal? 2. The brief facts are as follows: The appellant/assessee is an importer of self-adhesive tapes. During the period 2004 to 2007, the assessee imported 44 consignments of self-adhesive tapes. Based on the intelligence, on 18.06.2007, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) searched the office premises of the assessee and recovered 22 box files, 8 flat files and two hard disks. On the basis of the statements recorded, a show cause notice was issued alleging misdeclaration of the value of the goods imported by the assessee. Based on the analysis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, found that the e-mails of the appellant to foreign supplier recovered from the seized hard disk, statements etc show that the appellant had been making arrangement for transfer of funds to the manufacturer of goods. The Tribunal further found that the documents were examined by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who was also cross examined. It is relevant to note that the appellant failed to refute any of the evidence recorded. Hence, the Tribunal, taking note of the admission of the undervaluation of three bills of entry by the appellant, ordered pre-deposit of a sum of ₹ 45,00,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court raising the above-mentioned substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hardship, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. More over, the appellant had admitted the undervaluation of three bills of entry. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in ordering pre-deposit of ₹ 45.00 lakhs. R.SUDHAKAR,J. AND R.KARUPPIAH,J. 10. In the light of the above, finding no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed. 11. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that for non-compliance of the stay order, the Tribunal has dismissed the main appeal itself and the appellant is yet to file an appeal as against the said order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
