9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per: V. Gopala Gowda, J.]. - The petitioner in this petition has questioned the order dated 16-11-2009 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT' South Zonal Bench at Bangalore dismissing the application for modification filed by the petitioner for waiver with further pre-deposite of Rs. 20,00,000/- and further issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order and report compliance. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 7-8-2009 in the appeal giving certain particulars and contended that the total liability towards the excise duty is only 9,95,928/- taking into consideration the turnover of the structurals fabricated at site and the SSI benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 10 lakhs is also imposed upon the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. in support of the order of the CESTAT. Therefore, it is submitted by him that absolutely there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the said discretionary or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having regard to the fact that the CESTAT recorded a prima facie case that the pre-deposit waiver is not required in the instant case and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the appeal filed be fore it. 6. In this view of the matter, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of CESTAT in exercise of our judicial review power in this writ petition. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
