TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndestinely removal - A wholesale formula was applied by the appellant to claim higher burning loss - held that:- Tribunal has only directed payment of 15% of the duty demanded and has waived the pre-deposit of balance amount. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and, prima facie, keeping in view the undue hardship to the appellant, the impugned order has been passed which is just and reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as the Tribunal ) [2015 (319) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.-Del.)], claiming the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the impugned order dated 30-4-2014 passed by the ld. Tribunal is contrary to law and facts? (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for his appeal to be considered on merits by the CESTAT as appellant company is facing financial hardships? (iii) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 2007-08 to 2010-11 (upto October, 2011). The said show cause notice was duly replied by the assessee. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 30-8-2012 (Annexure A-2) confirmed the demand and interest and also imposed penalty of an equal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18-3-2013 (Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 directed the appellant to deposit 15% of the duty demanded. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had directed the assessee to pre-deposit 15% of the duty demanded as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal which was unreasonable and unjustified. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no suppression of clearance at all m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
