2011 (3) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Akil Kureshi, J. (Oral)]. -  Petitioner an industrial undertaking has challenged an order dated 14-12-2010 passed by CESTAT, at Ahmedabad, by virtue of which by way of pre-deposit requirement petitioner is to deposit a sum of Rs. 40 Lacs with the revenue to be able to maintain its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Petitioner has set up an i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such appeal passed impugned order dated 14-12-2010 and reduced the pre-deposit requirement to Rs. 40 Lacs, which comes to approximate 25% of the demand of the revenue. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification dated 31-7-2001 does not disqualify any investment made after 31-12-2005. He further contended that Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relied on Gover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irtue of Notification dated 31-7-2001 is a debatable question. Such question is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). At this stage, however it cannot be stated that it is such a clear case of denial of exemption which is borne out clearly from the Notification. 5.1 In that view of the matter, request of the petitioner to waive entire pre-deposit requirement cannot be accepted. However, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X