9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Petitioner no. 1 before this Court is a private limited company and petitioner no. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company. Petitioners claim certain excise benefits which a new unit is liable to get in form of excise and income tax exemptions given in Uttarakhand for a certain period of time, to new units. 2. Evidently, the petitioners took over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount which is 7.5% of the total disputed demand, before the appellate authority. The petitioners have not deposited this statutory deposit, which is mandatory demand as per Section 35F of the aforesaid Act. 4. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as under:- "Section 35F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal.- The Tribunal or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against: Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed rupees ten crores: Provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave not been taken into consideration, etc. 6. All the same, this writ petition is totally misconceived for various reasons. Firstly, there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioners under Section 35B read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and secondly, the petitioners have already availed this remedy. However, they have to deposit a statutory demand of 7.5% before the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
