TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President (Oral)]. - This appeal is dismissed against the impugned order in original dated 24-1-2011 whereby Commissioner Adjudication confirmed duty demand to the extent of ₹ 3,06,65,035/- against the appellant with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. 2. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant falsely contended that the duty confirmed again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue as such, he was directed to produce proof of deposit of duty demand by 31-8-2012. 6. Today Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate for the appellant submits that actually against the duty demand of ₹ 3,06,65,035/- confirmed vide impugned order, the appellant has deposited only ₹ 58,28,7811/-. Thus, it is obvious that the appellant throughout has been misleading the Tribunal regarding issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y demanded or the penalty levied : Provided that where in any particular case, the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
