9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') while disposing of an application for waiver of pre-deposit, in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). By Order-in-Original dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur (in short the 'Commissioner'), various amounts of duty and penalty were imposed. So far as the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to M/s. Bharat Electricals, without payment of duty, by availing the procedure provided under Rule 57F(4) for making clearances, without payment of duty, were being used by aforesaid M/s. Bharat Electricals in the manufacture of excisable goods charged to Central Excise duty at nil rate. On the basis of above information, factory premises of the petitioner and M/s. Bharat Electricals were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided under the said provisions. This was clearly admitted by Shri G.K. Agarwal, Manager and authorised signatory of M/s. BE in reply to Question No. 6 in his written statement dated 29-10-98." It appears that the petitioner took somewhat different stand before the Commissioner. First, it was said that instead of claiming exemption under Notification No. 84/94 they claimed the same under Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty and Rs. 1 lakh towards penalty, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. In support of the present application, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Notification has not been construed in its proper perspective. In view of the somewhat conflicting stand we wanted to know the exact notification on which petitioner relied. It was submitted that Notification No. 214/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with the respective stands of the parties and has come to a conclusion that there was no prima facie case for waiver of full amount of duty and penalty involved, we are in agreement with the views expressed by the Tribunal. However, considering the financial aspects highlighted by the petitioner, we feel deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs (Rs. 7 lakhs towards duty and Rs. 1 lakh towards penalty), witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
