TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty in each of the cases is Rs. 11.51 Crores, Rs. 7.99 Crores, Rs. 101 Crores, Rs. 2.65 Crores, Rs 1.97 Crores and Rs. 2.02 Crores respectively - Held that: an issue of an ad interim protection to the effect that the Appeals before the Tribunal shall not be dismissed for want of compliance with the order of pre-deposit in the meantime - 59 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2011 - Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.A. Sayed, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri V. Shridharan, Sr. Advocate with Prakash Shah and Jas Sanghavi, i/b PDS Legal, for the Appellant. Shri Jitendra B. Mishra, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (Oral)]. These Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 are directed against a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 9-6-2008 50 SCN s 9-9-2009 9-1-2009 3-3-2008 7-10-2009 Period May 2003 to Sept. 2007 Oct. 2007 to July 2008 Aug. 2008 to July 2009 16-12-2003 to 17-10-2005 - 925 units/PMT 18-10-2005 to 24-11-2008 - 860 units/PMT 10-1-2003 to 15-11-2007 1-9-2008 to 1-9-2009 Duty 7.99 crs 1.97 crs 2.02 crs 11.51 crs 2.65 crs 1.01 crs Penalty 7.99 crs 1.97 crs 2.02 crs 11.51 crs 2.65 crs 1.01 crs 0.80 crs (on director) 0.50 crs (on director) 0. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT for short), Mumbai, dated 28-2-2011, on an application for an interim relief. The CESTAT has directed the assessee to deposit 50 per cent of the amount of duty demanded along with 25 per cent of the penalty imposed, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. In the event the assessee complied with the order, there would be waiver of condition of pre-deposit and stay to the recovery of balance amount of duty and penalty. 2. Mr. Godsay the learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out several decisions of the CESTAT, wherein, the CESTAT has granted full waiver of the deposit, as an interim relief, where the facts are similar to the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take into consideration its earlier orders in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. and Mithulal Gupta Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding whether the appellant herein is entitled to waiver of pre-deposit. The appellant to appear before the Tribunal on 22-8-2011. 6. The Appeal is allowed, accordingly. No Orders as to costs. Civil Application stands disposed of. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that this Court may pass a similar order, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench at Aurangabad on 20 July 2011, remanding the proceedings back to the Tribunal. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the Revenue that - (i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake into consideration its earlier order in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. and Mithulal Gupta Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. With respect, we are unable to agree with the judgment of the Division Bench at Aurangabad dated 20 July 2011 in SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (First Appeal 706 of 2011 with C.A. 5013 of 2011). This is not a case where the Tribunal had not taken into account its earlier decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal in the course of its impugned decision did refer to the earlier decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd., but observed as follows : Again, the apex court s order in M/s. Bhagwati Ispat case lends great support to the Revenue in the present batch of appeals. We may a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly formulate the following question which requires to be considered by a Larger Bench of this Court : Whether the decision of the Division Bench in SRJ Peety. Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (First Appeal 706 of 2011 with CA 5013 of 2011) delivered on 20-July-2011 remanding the proceedings back to the Tribunal requires reconsideration since the Division Bench did not express any view prima facie that the decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. and Mithulal Gupta Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. (supra), involved similar facts and particularly when (i) The Tribunal had distinguished the decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) The Tribunal had followed the decisions of the Supreme Court involving a similar issue of principle. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
