9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bench had directed the appellant herein to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 45.00 lakhs for hearing and disposing the appeal. Not satisfied the said order, appellant preferred an application for modification for stay order which was also dismissed by the bench. Appellant herein preferred Special Civil Application No.1692 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Their Lordships while disposing the Special Civil Application No.1692 of 2014, by an order dt. 20.03.2014, in paragraph no.4 set aside the order of the Tribunal in so far as it directs this appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 45.00 lakhs and directed us to consider and dispose the stay petition in accordance with law. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri K.I. Vyas appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d shown bogus procurement of grey and finished fabrics and readymade garments from bogus / non-existing / fake firms and sought the rebate of the amount purportedly paid by them on clearance of finished fabrics. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find from the records that the adjudicating authority has confirmed and demanded central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,44,90,379/- and imposed equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant and also confirmed the demand of rebate claims of Rs. 98,17,068/- and imposed equivalent amount of penalty; he has also confirmed and demanded an amount of Rs. 26,20,477/- for the rebates which have been granted to the appellant alongwith equivalen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority has recorded detailed findings of the ineligibility of the appellant to claim rebate of duty paid by them on export of goods. As against such a detailed findings, we are of the view that the grounds taken in appeal by the appellant herein needs to be appreciated in depth which can be done only at the time of the final disposal of appeal. 8. Yet another point which was raised by the Ld. Counsel that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of central excise duty jointly and severally from the appellant and the proprietor, and as also de-facto partners of the appellant. On the perusal of the said order portion of the adjudicating authority, we find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
