9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. - The dispute between the parties lies in a very narrow compass. On 16th December, 2004 four applications seeking stay of demand came to be disposed of by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT/Tribunal), West Regional Bench, Mumbai by recording as under :- After hearing both the sides, we find that the goods worth "2. Rs. 32.73 lakhs stands confiscated by the impugned order with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e redemption for the confiscated goods in the custody of the department will not be opted, pending the appeal. The Advocate today fairly makes in this application made 2. submits that the option of redemption had been caused without his knowledge and pleads for the modification of pre-deposit order. Since the waiver was only on the undertaking that the goods 3. were with the department and inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal today. Mr. Malkan waives service of rule. 5. As can be seen from the impugned order of Tribunal dated 16th June, 2005, the CESTAT records that the order of waiving pre-deposit was only on the undertaking that the goods were lying with the department and interest of Revenue was safeguarded. Now in light of changed circumstances, CESTAT, on the ground that it is imperative to order safeguardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the factors pro and contra the case of the petitioners and what were the findings in relation to the same. Whether the petitioners had any prima facie case and, were likely to face any hardship on order of pre-deposit are issues which have to be addressed and adjudicated. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16th, June, 2005 cannot be allowed to stand. 6. The order dated 16th June, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
