2012 (8) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kr. Singh, Advs.  For Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar, sr. standing counsel S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT)   1. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2012 being order No.50/679-685/2012 Ex. (DB) in 2579/2012 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sioner of Central Excise by the order in original, upheld against the notices, including that against the present petitioner, and rendered findings that Amarnath Industries was not engaging itself in manufacturing but used to supply only crude oil, used ultimately for the manufacture of petitioner's products.   2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order to the extent tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n no way claimed that the direction to pay 15% of the duty demanded which works out to Rs.one crore is unreasonable that results in substantial hardship so as to cause prejudice its right to be heard. As far as the findings are concerned, we are satisfied that they cannot be considered as meritless. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.  
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X