TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AVA JJ. For petitioners: Shri J.C.Patel, Advocate with Shri Dhaval K.Shah and Shri Nilesh Joshi, Advocates. For respondents: Shri Vinay Zelawat, Advocate. Per Prakash Shrivastava, J: This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28/4/2011 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on Excise Stay Application No.498/2010 in Excise Appeal No.486/2010, rejecting the petitioners' prayer for waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. [2] In short, the petitioner is involved in the business of manufacturing of automobile parts and doing job work of the various manufacturers. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Principal M/s. Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd for manufacture of automobi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise not payable, amounts to undue hardship. He has referred to various judgments in support of his submissions. [4] Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order of the Tribunal and submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error. [5] We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. [6] The judgment in the matter of Spring Fresh Drinks Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991(54) ELT 333 (Tribunal), Collector Vs. Spring Fresh Drinks reported in 1997(92) ELT A70 (SC), CCE, Jamshedpur Vs. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd reported in 2000(117) ELT 647(Tribunal), Inox Air Products Ltd Vs. CCE, Nagpur Mumbai-I reported in 2001(134) ELT 224(Tri. Mumbai), CCE; Belgau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the matter of Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 2008(221)ELT 7 (SC), but according to that judgment also if it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. [8] On the perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, we have noticed that though the Tribunal had taken note of the judgment in the case of Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co.Ltd reported in 2007(208)ELT 181 (Tribunal-Bang), cited by the counsel for the petitioner, but the Tribunal has failed to consider its effect. In the matter of Jindal Praxair (supra) the Tribunal's South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, after referring to other judgments of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
