TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate. ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 27.1.2014 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the impugned order is contrary to findings recorded by Ld. Tribunal? ii) Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified to order to deposit whole amount of tax and interest? iii) Whether order of deposit of whole amount of tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lacs along with proportionate interest on the amount of Rs. 27.54 lacs (excluding the component of penalties) as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had directed the assessee to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lacs along with the proportionate interest on the amount of Rs. 27.54 lacs (excluding the component of penalties) as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal which was unreasonable and unjustified. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. In the present case, the Tribunal while directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 9.5 lacs along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties in total) within the period of 8 weeks from today. In default, the stay shall stand dissolved and the appeals stand rejected for failure of pre-deposit. The stay applications are accordingly disposed of. 5. In the present case, the appellant has been required to predeposit Rs. 9.5 lacs plus the proportionate interest on Rs. 27.54 lacs excluding the component of penalties out of demand of duty of Rs. 27.54 lacs and equal amount of penalty which is reasonable and justified. 6. In such a situation, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. In view of the above, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 7. A prayer was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to extend the time f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
