TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the respondents and with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to quash the order of repondent No. 2 (CEGAT), passed on the stay application dated 18-2-1998. 3. The petitioner had been engaged in the manufacture of washing machines and parts thereof at Bangalore, since April 1992. The Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner had filed an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and that application was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, holding that there is no merit, and waived the penalty and fine and directed the petitioner to deposit the duty amount of Rs. 1,10,50,630/-. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. C. Natarajan, inter alia, contended that the respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the duty amount, viz., 50% of Rs. 1,10,50,630/- within a period of four weeks frosm today and on deposit of such amount, the respondent No. 2 to register an appeal and to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of entertaining such an appeal. 8. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
