9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition on 08.12.2005 by passing the following order:- "Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Aradhana Chauhan, learned counsel for the Department. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5th October 2005 issued on 20th October 2005 by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by which the Tribunal partly allowed the Waiver Application filed by the petitioner, not full waiver of the precondition of deposit of demand for the entertainment of appeal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as against the out standing dues amounting to Rs. 56,06,662.00 besides the penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... takes a realistic view of the matter in determining the conditions which should be imposed upon the person for dispensing with the requirement of the deposit. On the facts of the present case, we have found that the petitioner's banker had agreed to give a Bank guarantee only on the condition that the entire amount is deposited in cash by the petitioner with it. We have also found from the copy of the balance sheet, which the petitioner has appended with the first of the two writ petitions, that the entire assets of the petitioner firm is a little over Rs. 3 lakhs, while the case in hands is only amount Rs. 1000/- and odd. It is obvious that in this state of petitioner's financial condition, requiring the petitioner to furnish Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue and emphasis appears on the words 'safeguard the interests of revenue.' Looking to the fact that the petitioner Unit lying closed since 1997, we substitute the order of the Tribunal and the direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) within one month from today and furnish the indemnity bond for the entire disputed amount within aforesaid period to the satisfaction of the authority concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
