9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding loans of over ₹ 49.65 Crores. It is seen from the Balance Sheet that the applicant earned net profit of ₹ 27627962.52. The Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliable Poly FIB (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat [2004 (4) TMI 397 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. He has also placed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indotex Machinery Works Vs. Asst. Collector of CE & Others [1986 (1) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS], whereby it has been held that stay refused once does not operate as res judicata if party renew request for stay by placing necessary material for justification of the interim relief earlier refused. In the present case, we find that the documents placed by the applicant are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s determined by the Adjudicating Authority. Taking into account of these facts, the demand of duty will be to the tune of ₹ 33,89,034/-. He fairly submits that these documents were not placed before the Adjudicating Authority. He also pleads financial hardship and enclosed the copy of the statement of profit Loss account and Balance Sheet ended on 31.03.2014. The Ld. Advocate submits that the applicants are facing acute financial difficulty. He drew the attention of the Bench to para-9 of the application. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the documents enclosed with the Miscellaneous Application were neither placed before the adjudicating authority nor enclosed in the appeal by the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res. It is also pleaded that the applicant has outstanding loans of over ₹ 49.65 Crores. It is seen from the Balance Sheet that the applicant earned net profit of ₹ 27627962.52. The Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliable Poly FIB (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat 2004 (170) ELT 379 (Tri.-Mum.). He has also placed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indotex Machinery Works Vs. Asst. Collector of CE Others 1987 (28) ELT 265 (Guj.), whereby it has been held that stay refused once does not operate as res judicata if party renew request for stay by placing necessary material for justification of the interim relief earlier refused. In the present case, we find that the documents placed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
