9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waiver especially when the Tribunal has granted unconditional waiver in the case of M/s. S.R. Industries. Pre-deposit order dated 16-7-2007 and order dated 27-10-2008 rejecting modification application of the petitioners must be set aside and the matter must be remanded to respondent 2 for de novo consideration on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders dated 16-7-2007 and 27-10-2008 and direct respondent 2 to consider the case on merits without any pre-deposit. - 7992 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2009 - Ranjana Desai and J.P. Devadhar, JJ. [Order]. - P.C. : This petition is filed basically to challenge pre-deposit order dated 16-7-2007 as well as order dated 27-10-2008 passed by the respondent 2, rejecting the mod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06, the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise confirmed the duty demanded and penalties imposed. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 18-12-2006 to the extent it confirmed the duty demanded from the petitioners in respect of the said two units at Silvasa and Vapi, the petitioners filed their separate appeals before respondent 2 under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners also filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded and penalties imposed and stay of recovery thereof, pending the hearing and final disposal of the said appeals. 4. On 16-7-2007, respondent 2 heard the stay applications and directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1,20,00,000/- within eight weeks from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners. Learned counsel submitted that in two cases of similar nature, the respondents demanded duty from the consignees. Demand was confirmed in the hands of consignees. Revenue accepted this order. No appeal was preferred. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not permissible in law to pass inconsistent assessment orders and, hence, respondent 2 should have passed an order granting unconditional waiver. It is pointed out that in the appeal filed by the consignee - M/s. S.R. Industries, the Tribunal has granted full waiver and in the appeal preferred by the consignee - M/s. Riba Textiles Limited, the Tribunal has directed pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. 8. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
