TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is much less than even the cost of production - demand is not merely on the basis of electric consumption - Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeals on merits - appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as the appellants failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh - appeals are disposed of by way of remand. - E/1602 & 1604/10 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2012 - Mr. S.S. Kang, Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate, for appellant Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (AR), for respondent Per: S.S. Kang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the rider that no booking of case can be attempted straight away on this single basis and for that purpose an expert from metallurgical field/trade will have to be associated. In the present case the demand is based on the report of Dr. Batra without associating any expert from metallurgical field. In these circumstances, the demand is not sustainable. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that there is other evidence on record which shows that the manufacturing cost of the applicants if taken into consideration, the applicants are selling at a lower price than the cost of production. The Revenue has taken us to the findings in the adjudication order at internal page 16 of the adjudication order. The Revenue relied upon the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ric consumption, directed the applicants to deposit an amount of 50% of the duty and 25% of the penalties. On appeals filed by the applicants, the Hon ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 23.11.2011 modified the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the assessees to deposit an amount of 25% of the duty for hearing of the appeals. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court relied upon by the Revenue, we find that the applicant has not made out a case for total waiver of duty. The applicant also pleaded financial hardship on the ground that their factory is taken over by the Bank and is closed. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, financial hards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
