9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d conditional stay despite the reference made by Chennai Bench to the larger bench, we do not agree with applicant for the reason that this Tribunal has passed stay order after considering this very aspect, in para 5.7 of the stay order dated 23/01/2015, therefore order cannot be modified on that ground. However on perusal of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SRF Ltd [2015 (4) TMI 561 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Ramesh Nair These applications for modification of stay order No. S/38-41/15/CB dated 9/12/2014 by which this Tribunal directed the applicant to make pre-deposit of ₹ 4.5 crore on or before 7/4/2015, thereafter applicant filed this application. 2. Shri. V.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that in the identical case the Chennai Bench of CESTAT referred the matter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that in view of this, order for pre-deposit of ₹ 4.5 crores is not proper. He also submits that in number of identical cases this Tribunal has granted unconditional stay on the basis that the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench. Alternatively, he submits that subsequent to the stay order, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai - 2015-TIOL-74-SC-CUS hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1.19 crores. 3. Shri. V.K. Singh, Ld. Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that if the applicant deposits 50% of ₹ 1.19 Crore, he has no objection in modification of stay. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 4. As regard the prayer of the appellant that they were granted conditional stay despite the reference made by Chen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
