9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta dated 5th January, 2000 which was reviewed by the self-same Bench on the basis of an application in the form of modification of the order. 2.It appears from the order of the Tribunal that demand of duty is Rs. 42,62,862/- and Rs. 14,729/- plus Rs. 20,000/- as fine and Rs. 42,62,862/- as penalty. The question raised before the CEGAT is that the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Calcutta-I), 1994 (69) E.L.T. 193 (Cal.), [Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochem. Ltd. v. Collr. of C. Ex. (A), (Cal)], 1985 (22) E.L.T. 301 (All.), (Hari Fertilisers v. Union of India & Others), 1991 (53) E.L.T. 543 (Cal.); (J.N. Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CEGAT) and 1993 (64) E.L.T. 184 (All.) (Tullu Engineering Works v. Union of India) to establish that whenever there is prima facie case out of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in comparison to the claim that such order of pre-deposit may not be interfered with by this Court. 5.I have considered the original application and review application and I found that in review no new case was made out, therefore, the order is justified. 6.So far the question of limitation is concerned, the petitioner agitated the point even at the stage of hearing of original application a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
