9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank guarantee) for 40% of the penalty is unreasonable or arbitrary to warrant interference. In our opinion, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. - MFA No. 1166/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2017 - H. G. Ramesh And K. S. Mudagal, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Chidananda URS B. G., Advocate For the Respondent : Sri Madhukar Deshpande, Advocate JUDGMENT H. G. Ramesh, J. ( Oral ) 1. Heard. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi in appeal No.26/2013 partially dispensing with deposit of the penalty amount. The order was passed exercising the power under second p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit the amount of such penalty with such authority as may be notified by the Central Government: Provided further that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation of penalty. . 3. The reasoning of the Tribunal in passing the order is as follows: 8. In view of the above, discussions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, we are convinced that the applicants/appellants have an arguable case. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll practical purposes, it will amount to demanding the deposit of entire amount of penalty imposed through the Adjudication Order. Therefore, the Tribunal is now not insisting on bank guarantee in the cases before it, at the time of disposal of the applications for stay waiver from pre-deposit. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Vaseem Iqbal Kapadia v. Union of India [2015 (323) E.L.T. 353 (Bom.)] 2. ND Investments v. Union of India [2015 (319) E.L.T. 53 (Bom.)] 3. Pennar Industries Ltd. vs. State of A.P. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.)] 4. Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)] 5. Monotosh Sah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
