9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order dated 15-6-2005 (Annexure A/3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in E/Stay/1053/05 NB(S) in Appeal No. B/1443/05 NB (S). It has been claimed that the following substantial question of law have arisen from the afore-mentioned order : "(i) Whether the Tribunal can go into the merits of the case in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o used Steel Scraps as inputs from M/s. BR Industries, New Delhi. The value of the transaction under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity 'the Act') as declared by the dealer was Rs. 5,00,000/- and at the rate of 16 per cent Central Excise Duty was leviable which was calculated at Rs. 80,000/-. The supplier however has charged the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,96,732.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000.00 under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Along with an appeal filed by the assessee, an application for staying the recovery was also filed. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Act. Consequently the assessee approached the CESTAT. The CESTAT vide its order dated 15-6-2005 allowed the application for stay without imposing any cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any as per law." 3. The revenue has challenged the afore-mentioned order on the ground that the Tribunal should have decided the Stay application alone by dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit and it should have remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) without deciding the controversy on merits. 4. We have hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
