9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal dated 27-12-1990 passed in a stay application. 2. The appeal before the second respondent-Tribunil relates to the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 10,25,388.19 for the period from 11-6-1987 to 31-7-1989 and the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the first respondent-Collector of Central Excise on 8-8-1990. The Tribunal points out that the petitioner was paying under Tariff he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion that the petitioner has an arguable case in the appeal. However, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner does not have a strong prima facie case. So far as the question of financial hardship is concerned, the Tribunal observed that there is no plea by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal. This is disputed by the petitioner and it is contended that the petitioner has also pleaded finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal has also agreed that the petitioner has an arguable case in the appeal. Therefore, I am inclined to modify the order of the Tribunal as follows : The Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within 8 (eight) weeks from today. The rest of the amount shall stand waived till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. This writ petition is ordere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
