9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with, and even on enquiry by the Tribunal on the question of extension of time for making the pre-deposit, the counsel for the appellant having submitted that the appellant is not in a position to make the pre-deposit, the Tribunal thought it fit to dismiss the appeal. In view of the well considered order of the Tribunal, wherein the prima facie case and financial hardship of the appellant were taken into consideration while ordering pre-deposit, which order has not been complied with, the bona fide of the appellant in filing the appeal now itself is in question. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal at this point of time, more so when the issue has become stale by efflux of time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The said appeal was considered in stay order Nos.70 to 75 of 2010 dated 1.2.2010 and the Tribunal passed the following order :- 2. We do not see any prima facie merit in the submission of the assessees that it is Section 4A assessment that should have been resorted to instead of Section 4 assessment for the reason that the complete MRP for the entire period of dispute namely April, 2004 to September, 2007 was not available and the assessees furnished only the immediate MRPs in the statement of Shri M.Krishna Kumar, Partner of M/s.Swathy Industry. The submission of the assessees that the demand takes into account not only goods manufactured by Swathy Industry but also other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appeals. E/S/247/2009 filed by Smt. S.Janaki is dismissed as she has not been penalized by the impugned order and the challenge in the application is to the levy of redemption fine which does not fall within the scope of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeals without prior notice. 3. The compliance is to be reported on 26.4.2010. 3. This order of the Tribunal, however, was not complied with by the appellant and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed Misc. Application No.E/146/2010 seeking modification of the stay order, which came to be disposed of by the Tribunal holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration of the matter, this Court finds that at the first instance, the Tribunal has considered the prima facie case and also the plea of financial hardship expressed by the appellant and taking into consideration the quantum of demand of ₹ 3,02,08,777/=, had ordered pre-deposit to the tune of ₹ 1 Crore only as pre-condition for hearing the appeal. However, though modification was sought for on the same set of arguments, the Tribunal thought it fit not to modify the order. The Tribunal has further observed that, the said amount having not been deposited and the order having not been complied with, and even on enquiry by the Tribunal on the question of extension of time for making the pre-deposit, the counsel for the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
