TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T ANDHRA PRADESH ] – to meet the ends of justice and keeping in view the interest of Revenue and also the fact that the applicant being a Public Sector Undertaking - the applicants directed to deposit Rupees five crores as pre-deposit – Upon such submission rest of the amount to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - Appeal Nos.17/08,185/09,74/10,198/11 & 109/12 - ORDER NO. S-70-74/Kol/2013 - Dated:- 25-3-2013 - Dr. D.M. Misra and Dr. I.P. Lal, JJ. For the Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri D. K. Acharyya, Spl. Counsel ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra : These five applications are filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.27.04 crores and equal amount of penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of CTPD under 27060090 attracting nil rate of duty, whereas, the Department proposed to classify it under 27081010 alleging that the product is not CTPD but PCM. He has contended that even though the applicants had contested that they stopped manufacturing PCM after 1987 and dismantled all the machineries manufactured by PCM, but they themselves have admitted in one of their reply dated March 25, 1998 filed with the Department that CTPD and PCM are one and the same product. He has submitted that this reply filed by the applicants could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal during the course of hearing of the earlier stay petition. He has submitted that in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, directed for hearing of the appeal itself on 08.10.2012. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find there are altogether seven appeals pending on the same issue involving the period from January, 1998 to March, 2011. While disposing the stay petition in Ex. Appeal No.393/06, this Tribunal waived pre-deposit of the dues keeping in view that the issue is of classification dispute and has been pending for a long and needs early disposal, accordingly, directed, hearing of the appeal on 8.10.12. However, for some reason or the other, the appeal could not be heard. It is now brought to our notice by the Spl. Representative for Revenue that by their reply dated 25.3.98, the appellants themselves have accepted that their product now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
