TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, the appellants have prayed for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1,29,032/- and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants, engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel Ingots/Billets under compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, closed down their factory on account of adve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner rejected the abatement claim on the second ground aforesaid and further directed the party to pay the amount of Rs. l,29,032/- (for which abatement was claimed). Hence the present appeal and the stay application. 3. Ld. Advocate, Shri Ajay Jain submits that the applicants have a strong prima facie case on the basis that the Commissioner, by the impugned order, directed them to pay the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of getting the benefit of abatement, the claimant should fulfil all the mandatory requirements of Rule 96ZO(2). But the applicants did not satisfy the requirement of clause (e) of the above rule. In this connection, ld. JDR has relied on the decision of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Avis Electronics [2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal)]. He, therefore, strongly opposes the applicant s p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial hardship in the present application. I further note that the requirement of clause (e) of Rule 96ZO(2) appears to have remained unfulfilled in the present case and, therefore, the Commissioner s order rejecting the abatement claim on that ground appears to be prima facie correct. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that these applicants have to be directed to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
