9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 1-9-2004 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for entertaining the appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Subodh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit, as required under the law, the Court must apply its mind as to whether the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merit. In case it is covered by the judgment of a Court/Tribunal binding upon the Appellate Authority, it should apply its mind as to whether in view of the said judgment, the appellant is likely to succeed on merit. If an appellant having strong prima facie case, is asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of deposit should also be allowed where two views are possible. While considering the application for interim relief, the Court must examine all pros and cons involved in the case and further examine that in case recovery is not stayed, the right of appeal conferred by the legislature and refusal to exercise the discretionary power by the authority to stay/waive the pre-deposit condition, would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situation of this case. The order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and we have no option but to allow this petition and set aside the order impugned." 4. From a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, we find that the Tribunal has not considered the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case and, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained and is hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
