TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that this Appeal was earlier dismissed in the absence of clearance from the Committee of Disputes to pursue this Appeal before the Tribunal, vide Order dated 20-3-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Minutes of the COD, the duty demand to the tune of Rs. 2.97 crores (Rupees two crores ninety-seven lakhs) has been made in this case on the assumption that there is a difference between the figures of production and quantity mentioned in Annual Statistics of the Appellant public sector steel plant and those reported in excise returns in respect of the production of billets, blooms, slabs and ingot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tates that the matter may be adjourned as the learned J.C.D.R. who is required to argue this case is not present today. 4. After hearing both sides, we reject the request for adjournment. In view of the fact that the High Power Committee on Disputes in which the Department of Revenue was represented, has allowed the Appellant to pursue this Appeal before the Tribunal, we recall the earlier Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as there is no stocktaking loss involved in this case. Accordingly, we are, prima facie, of the view that the Appellant Public Sector Steel Plant need not be forced to pre-deposit such a huge amount of duty quantified under an inapplicable Rule. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit during pendency of the Appeal. However, considering the amounts involved, with the consent of both s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
