9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting on the petitioner making the pre-deposit - 1923 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 24-10-2008 - M. Jaichandren, J. Shri K. Jayachandran, for the Petitioner. Shri S.M. Deenadayalan, for the Respondent. [Order].- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacturing of Steel Re-rolled products having a valid Central Excise Registration Certificate. For the period from 1-9-1997 to 31-3-2000, the levy of excise duty was governed under the Compounded Levy Scheme, introduced under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f central Excise, the third respondent herein, had passed an adjudication order, Order-in-Original No. 28/2001, dated 3-9-2001, confirming the proposal, demanding Rs.18,13,200/-. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent. However, the second respondent had dismissed the appeal by an Order-in-Appeal No. 70 of 2002, dated 28-5-2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner had filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount demanded, under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. However, the first respondent, without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner, had passed the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first respondent, by the impugned order, dated 21-10-2002, before the E. Appeal No. 320 of 2002 is disposed of, on merits. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents had relied on the decision reported in Jaypee Rewa Plant v. UOI and others 2006 (198) E.L.T. 498 (Del.) = 2005 (71) RLT 701 (Del.), wherein, it had been held that the question whether or not a pre-deposit should be waived in toto or in part is a matter which rests entirely with the discretion of the Tribunal. A Writ court, exercising powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not, ordinarily, interfere with the exercise of any such discretion, unless it is shown that the same has been exercised in an arbitrary manner. Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
