9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner. 2. This petition primarily challenges the order dated 26/3/2004 made by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone, Mumbai. 3. As the facts reveal, the petitioner had moved the stay application before the Tribunal against the order quantifying amount of duty at Rs.76,42,921/- along with penalty of Rs.52,64,948/- and Rs.24,00,000/- on the petitioner. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal found that this was a case of under-valuation, the petitioner having indicated one valuation on central excise invoice and another on the commercial invoice. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner had not been able to make out any case in favour of full waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-3-2004, the appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution under provisions of Section 35F of the Act read with the stay order and the order on the Miscellaneous Application for the reason that, on the date of hearing, neither the appellant was present nor was there any compliance report available on record. 6. Mr. Shah on behalf of the petitioner made strenuous efforts to point out that once the petitioner was registered with BIFR, the Tribunal could not have made any order directing pre-deposit of any amount, and that, the entire demand ought to have been stayed. In support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on a decision rendered by this Court in case of Texplast Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (182) E.L.T. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has failed to make out any prima facie case for interfering with the impugned order of Tribunal dated 26th March 2004. 8. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the order dated 26th March 2004 came to be challenged by the petitioner only after the petitioner was called upon to discharge its liability by the respondent authorities vide communication dated 2/7/2004. Thus, it goes to show that, for all intents and purposes, the petitioner had accepted the impugned order of Tribunal, the challenge having been raised belatedly only when the action for recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
