TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors. [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court] – Appellant is directed to deposit seventy five lakhs rupees as pre-deposit – Upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 26 of 2013, Central Excise Appeal No. - 27 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-10-2013 - Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : Pradeep Agrawal For the Respondent : Rajesh Singh Chauhan ORDER Both the appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the consolidated order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ST/Stay/1072/2012; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants were illegal searched and all the credit entries in the Bank Accounts were treated as the receipt for the services. Not only this, even the "cash van" provided by the appellants has also been included for levy of service tax. The Department has levied the penalty and interest illegally. He also submits that the security to the "cash van" is provided by the concerning Bank/Financial Institution. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal has passed the order requiring the appellants to deposit the entire amount of the assessed tax. The learned Tribunal did not consider the financial conditions of the appellants as well as the fact that the entire adjudication is based on a search. The warrant of search was in the name of "Federal Secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating an application for stay of demand. As learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is financial crunch with the appellants, but the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. In the instant case, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the opposite parties are going to close the business of the appellants. When it is so, then we are of the view that the tax can be collected like a honeybee but without damaging the flower. Hence, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Assistant Collector, Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. Ors., 154 ITR 172 (SC) as well as in the case of ITO vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, 75 ITR 815, 822 (SC), we are of the view that in the present appeals, stay can be granted as conditions me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
