9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2012 - Ashok Bhushan, Prakash Krishna JJ For the Appellant: A.P. Mathur,M.K. Rajvanshi For the Respondent: K.C. Sinha,C.S.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.C. Shukla learned counsel for the opposite party. By this application the applicants have prayed for extension of time for deposit of the amount pursuant to order dated 08.12.2005 passed by this Court. This Court decided the writ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of M.C. Goel Versus Union of India and others, 1998 (35) ELT 449. Emphasis was laid on para 6 of the said judgment. The said para reproduced below: The object underlying the proviso would, in our opinion, be really served where, on finding that the requirement to deposit the entire amount of the Duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to the appellant, the appellate authority 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assing the impugned order. Reliance has been placed by him in the case of Union Electronics Vs. Union of India and others 1987 (31) ELT 883. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner has been asked to deposit only a sum of ₹ 15 lakhs out of demand of ₹ 56,06,662.00 besides penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs and personal penalty of ₹ 1 lakhs. Proviso to Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that where 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
