9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-deposit condition, prolonging the appeals. Admittedly, the department has recovered the entire duty drawback amount of ₹ 12,22,953/-. Even if the appeals are eventually dismissed by CESTAT, the only amounts to be recovered from the appellants would be the penalty amounts. - we allow the appeals and set aside the pre-deposit condition imposed by the CESTAT. - Decided in favour of assessee. - C.M.A. Nos.2163 to 2165 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - Mr. V.Ramasubramanian And Mr. T.Mathivanan, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Harikrishnan For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas,Sr.Standing counsel JUDGMENT V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. These appeals are by three different assessees, questioning the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of the goods covered by the eight shipping bills at ₹ 26,44,500/- instead of the declared value of ₹ 1,82,33,878.10. He also ordered the confiscation of the goods, but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of ₹ 3,00,000/-(rupees three lakhs). The duty drawback to the extent of ₹ 12,22,923/- allegedly availed unduly by the appellants, was directed to be recovered with interest from M/s.Sri Sairam Exports. A penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) was imposed upon M/s.J.M.Fashions; a penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) was imposed upon M/s.Sri Sairam Exports and a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- (rupes two lakhs fifty thousand) was imposed upon M/s.Sindhu Textiles. Different penalties were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty drawback allegedly claimed unlawfully to the extent of ₹ 12,22,923/-, the direction to the appellants to make a pre-deposit even out of the penalty amount, would result in undue hardship to the appellants. 8. Though substantially the Tribunal has directed only 1/3rd or 1/4th of the penalty amount to be deposited as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeals and though in normal circumstances, we would not interfere with such an order, the cases on hand falls under a different category. The appeals filed by the appellants are pending from 2007 before the Tribunal. A period of eight years have gone. Therefore, there is no point in the fight over the pre-deposit condition, prolonging the appeals. Admittedly, the department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
