9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 - A.S. OKA And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. For the Appellant. : Shri M.H. Patil along with Shri Sachin Chitnis i/b Aparna Hirandagi P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant preferred an Appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai challenging the order dated 7th March 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) JNCH, Nhava Sheva, arising out of an order in Original No.133 of 201415. The Adjudicating Authority by an order in Original confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 7,13,45,045/along with interest thereon against the Appellant. The Appellate Tribunal by the first impugned order dated 16th October 2014 directed the Appellant to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the Appellant before the Appellate Tribunal has been dismissed. 3. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant was that the Appellant had specifically pleaded financial hardship before the Tribunal when the Application for interim relief was argued on 15th September 2014. He invited our attention to the averments made in the Application for modification (ExhibitJ) and in particular in Clause (B) thereof. Secondly, he relied upon the statutory amendment made with effect from 6th August 2014 requiring the deposit of 7.5%. His submission is that some of the High Courts held that though the amendment was brought into force with effect from 6th August 2014, it will apply to the Appeals filed prior to 6th Aug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is that in the said Application of stay, the case of financial hardship was pleaded. 5. In the said Application and in the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellant may have pleaded several grounds and factual aspects but the question is that whether the same were agitated before the Appellate Tribunal during the course of hearing on 15th September 2014. It is not the case made out in the modification application that a specific plea on the financial hardship or financial constraint was raised on 15th September 2014 during the course of the submissions and was not considered. On the contrary, it appears that though the financial constraint was pleaded in the said application, it was not agitated at the time of hearing on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
