2020 (7) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing a creature of the Act is bound by the provisions of the Act and has no powers or jurisdiction to convert the mandate of Section 35F into any other act. As such, for entertaining the appeals appellants are required to deposit the amounts in terms of Section 35F. At this stage, learned advocate submits that his clients have no finance to deposit the amount in question even if some more time i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndra Mishra, (nobody appeared for Shri Vishnu Kant Sharma) and Shri B. K. Jain learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue, we find that the Stay Petition filed by the appellants have not been disposed of till date, though the matter relates to the year 2013. It is seen that demand of duty of Excise to the tune of ₹ 6.57 crores approximately stands confirmed against Shri Raghvendra Mishra alongwi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant fairly agrees that the said deposits have not been made by him nor are they in a position to deposit the said amount. However, he submits that the disputed premises of Shri Raghvendra Mishra stands attached by the Revenue and as such he submits that the same may be considered as deposit for the purpose of Section 35F. However on going through the provisions of 35F, we note that the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X