9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was dismissed for default - Held that: - the pre-deposit amount of ₹ 25 lakhs ordered to be deposited by the 1st respondent had been deposited. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal for non compliance is hereby is set aside and the same is remanded back to the 1st respondent/tribunal for conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was operating under compounded levy scheme and paying the amount as per Section 3A of Central Excise Act 1944 read with Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 and sub Rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Show Cause notices have been issued regularly from September 1997 to August 1999 demanding differential duty along with penalty and interest. The petitioner p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 on 2.11.2006 directing the petitioner to pre deposit ₹ 25 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act within six weeks and to report compliance on 19.12.2006. 4. The petitioner challenged the above said order by filing a Writ Petition No.48240 of 2006 before this Court and the said Writ Petition was admitted and notice was ordered and the Writ Petition was posted for hearing on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent to hear the main appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit of duty and penalty. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that for non compliance of the order passed by the 1st respondent, the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was dismissed for default. Against which, the present writ petition is filed praying to quash the same and to furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
