TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/392/09, SP-561/09 Appropriated Nil 7,23,098/- M/s. Bajrang Lal Agarwal Appeal/Stay Duty (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) E/391/09 SP-560/09 10,00,000/- E/393/09 SP-562/09 14,21,983/- 14,21,983/- E/390/09 SP-559/09 58,24,735/- 59,33,424/- E/1384/09 SP-563/09 85,43,646/- 86,66,816/- E/1395/09 SP-564/09 17,64,668/- 17,64,668/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that though in the de-novo proceeding they had produced all the relevant documents/invoices before the adjudicating authority, the same were not considered while passing the impugned order. Consequently he has submitted the reports of various jurisdictional divisional commissioners which were relied by the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned order, were not handed over to them resulting violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the order is bad in law. 5. Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that applying the ratio of the Larger Bench case in Ispat Industries (supra) the adjudicating authority has directed the Jurisdictional Divisional Assistant Commissioners as these units fall under different locations to ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were submitted but not considered or were not submitted to the Department hence not considered. Since the present appeal before this Tribunal is the second round of litigation and to avoid the third round, the Bench had asked the Ld. Consultant to produce the copies of the said invoices which they had produced before the adjudicating authority but not considered. However, he could not produce the same before the Bench for his perusal therefore we find it difficult to accept the said argument of the Ld. Consultant that the invoices were produced but not considered. Also we do not find any contrary facts in the report of the jurisdictional officer which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order other than verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or otherwise as claimed by the Ld. Consultant. In our view, the appellant had not made out a strong prima facie case in their favour for complete waiver of pre deposit of the duty and penalty mentioned as above. After considering all aspects including the plea of financial hardship, we direct the applicant to deposit and amount of ₹ 60.00 Lakhs (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today and on compliance of the same, the balance amount of duty and penalty on the appellant as well as on the Director stands waived. Failure to deposit of the same, the appeal will result in the dismissal without further notice. Compliance is to be made on (Operative part of the order pronounced in the court) - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
