TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed by the learned counsel for the appellant - Extention of time for submission of pre deposit granted. - C.M. No. 21613-CII of 2013 and CEA No. 95 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 18-3-2014 - Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. C.M. No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same facts, it had passed another Stay order dated 18.01.2012 ordering pre-deposit of approximate 10% of the duty demand? (ii) Whether CESTAT can pass inconsistence orders for pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the similar cases? (iii) Whether the appellant has a prima facie case when the export documents were resumed by the Preventive staff during raid on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njustice has been done to the appellant by directing it to make pre-deposit under the impugned Stay Order? 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of articles under headings 54, 61 and 62 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant during the period from 13.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by this Court vide order dated 15.1.2013. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to avail the legal remedy under Section 35G of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the requirement of deposit of 75% amount of duty as directed by the Tribunal in the present case was unfair, unreasonable and excessive whereas on the earlier occasion agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
