9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has concluded from the test reports of the samples drawn during this period that the goods that were cleared were SS billets and not OAS billets. In respect of the Modvat Credit, the Tribunal has observed that the appellant was unable to make out a prima facie case. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the appellant had failed to make out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit. - The effect of the application filed by the appellant before the BIFR was also examined. The Tribunal, after taking notice of the statement of learned counsel for the appellant that the application filed before the BIFR had subsequently been dismissed, concluded that this was also a reason for imposing the condition for safeguarding the interest of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice and the adjudication order, which was prior to remand remains the same and when ₹ 1 crore was directed to be deposited in compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944. (iii) Whether the Tribunal can direct deposit of ₹ 3 crores in compliance of section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 when the entire land, building, plant and machinery is lying in the custody of the department and the appellant has not been able to redeem the same on payment of ₹ 1 crore till date and the factory is lying closed for the last several years. The appellant is a manufacturer of stainless steel billets (SS billets), other alloy steel billets (OAS billets), stainless steel flats and steel castings. Prior to 1 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Rules, 1944 with option to redeem on redemption fine; and (e) imposed a penalty of ₹ 50 Lakhs each on Anil Rathi, P.Rathi, Arun Rathi and penalty of ₹ 5 Lakhs of M.L.Aggarwal under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This order of the Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter. However, the Commissioner by an order dated 13 March 2007 again confirmed the earlier order dated 25 November 1997. It is against this order of the Commissioner that the appellant filed an appeal along with a waiver and stay application. The application was disposed of by the Tribunal by an order dated 17 July 2007 requiring the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 2 crores towa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit ₹ 3 crores towards the pre-deposit under section 35-F of the Act. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal had not decided the matter in accordance with the directions given by the High Court while remitting the case. We are unable to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal has examined whether the appellant had a strong prima facie case that would result in its exoneration from the imposition of duty. In this connection, the Tribunal has recorded a finding against the appellant on each of the three components of duty/modvat credit. In respect of the goods cleared by the appellant as OAS Billets during the relevant period from 5 August 1993 to February 1994 and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
