9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p, if any, as also to safeguard the interests of Revenue. As the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons why it considered it appropriate to hear the appeal without any requirement of pre-deposit, the order under appeal is set aside. - Tribunal to re-decide the matter - Decided in favor of revenue. - C.E.A.No.131 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2015 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : SURESH KUMAR JUDGMENT : (per Hon ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ) is preferred against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Banglore in Appeal No.ST/26294/2013 dated 03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, would draw attention of this Court to the Division Bench judgment in SQL Star International Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate and Others to contend that the Tribunal, while dealing with an application for waiver of pre-deposit, should take into consideration the requirements of undue hardship and safeguarding the interests of Revenue. In SQL Star International Ltd.1 the Division Bench, after considering the judgments of the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise observed: The following principles should be kept in mind while considering the applications for stay or for dispensing with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, Ahmedabad-II vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. and, as there is no other judgment of any other High Court to the contrary, the Tribunal had rightly observed that the appeal should be heard without any requirement of pre-deposit. In M/s.Hira Ferro Alloys Limited vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Customs , the Division bench observed that, where the order passed is patently contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court or the High Court on an identical issue which has reached finality, it would be a strong case where full waiver would be justified. The jurisdiction, which this Court exercises, under Section 35G of the Act, is only where a substantial question of law arises for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
