TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jay Kumar Mittal and G S Sandhawalia, JJ. For Appellants: Mr Deepak Gupta, Adv. Mr Jagmohan Bansal, Adv. Petitioner.b For Respondent: Mr D D Sharma, Adv. JUDGEMENT Per: Ajay Kumar Mittal: 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 11991 and 12005 of 2012 as identical issues are involved in both the petitions. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 11991 of 2012. 2. This petition has been filed against the stay order dated 9.2.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal ) holding that the appeal of the petitioner would be dismissed automatically without any further hearing in the case on account of non-deposit of an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was noticed and a show cause notice regarding the same was issued to M/s VAL. During enquiry regarding past transactions, it was found that M/s VAL was purchasing raw material from various registered dealers including the petitioner and was taking cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the said dealers. During the period in question, the petitioner sold scrap involving duty amounting to Rs. 7,98,000/- to M/s VAL. After completion of investigation, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 3.9.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 be not imposed upon it. It was also mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner and other dealers have only sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e similar order dated 9.2.2012 (Annexure P-3) has been modified by this Court in CWP No. 8433 of 2012 (M/s Victory Impex v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana and another) decided on 31.5.2012 wherein it has been held that the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be dismissed for want of pre-deposit by M/s VAL Ltd. Further, it was urged that once the Tribunal had waived the condition of pre-deposit of penalty in the case of the petitioner vide order dated 9.2.2012, the Tribunal was not justified in passing order on miscellaneous application on 8.5.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount imposed on them by reviewing its earlier order. 7. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
