9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent @ Rs. 750 PMT. Apparently and admittedly the said amount is more than the amount of 7.5% of the amount as is required for pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. As apparent from verification report, it has been verified by the department itself that the burden of said amount of duty has been borne by the appellant itself. Irrespective of the issue about the liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal and to list the same in due course. - HON BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appearance For the Appellant : Shri Prashant Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative. ORDER PER In compliance of the order dated 14 July 2023, appellant had produced all the invoices before the concerned Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EA), it is mandatory to make the payment of the amount of pre-deposit @ of 7.5% of the demand/duty confirmed and penalty imposed for appeal to be heard by this Tribunal. The findings in said Verification Report doesn t amount to be mandatory compliance of Section 35F CEA. 3. To counter the said submissions, the learned counsel has mentioned that from the verification report, it has come on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard both the parties, we observe that the amount of duty as has been confirmed against the appellant is Rs. 5,25,80,517/- (Five Crores Twenty Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred Seventeen only). Admittedly, the said amount of duty stands paid to the extent @ Rs. 750 PMT. Apparently and admittedly the said amount is more than the amount of 7.5% of the amount as is required for pre-deposit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g heard on merits in any appeal where more than 7.5% of the amount required for pre-deposit has already been recovered by the department though not from the appellant, but from its khandsari unit. Resultantly, it is held that since the amount of pre-deposit stands already paid, there is no such defect. As far as the defect No. 2 is concerned, the requisite documents have been filed. Said defect al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
