TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal, Mumbai (hereafter referred to as the CESTAT ) has directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty of ₹ 4,27,93,566/-. 3. Submission of Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Counsel for the appellant is that a unit similarly situated namely M/s. Ramson Casting Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur has raised an identical challenge against the order-in-original and that unit has been given full waiver. The said order was not available when the order dated 7-6-2012 was passed. Because of this view in case of a sister unit, the appellant sought modification and pointed out that - as the challenge raised by it is identical to one mentioned above, it is entitled to similar direction regarding full waiver. The CESTAT has on 23-10-2012 refused to modify the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pressed into service to explain meaning of the phrase undue hardship . 8. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that the main appeal in which these orders have been passed is itself dismissed as the amount has not been deposited. He further contends that in the case of M/s. Ramson Casting Pvt. Ltd., there is a specific finding of violation of principles of natural justice and in the present matter, the Authority has recorded a finding that the appellant was extended necessary opportunity and has been heard. 9. He further submits that mere use of word undue hardship is not sufficient and here the appellant unit is not in losses. In this situation, when the CESTAT has, by placing reliance upon the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant was not in dispute. In case of Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the CESTAT has to be consistent and cannot take different views on same facts. We do not find paras relied upon by the appellant in Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in Ram Kirpal (supra). Said judgment is on wide power with the CESTAT to do complete justice. It holds that review does not confer power upon it to rehear matter on merits. As here, at this stage, there is a finding that the appellant is not a loss making unit, no case of undue hardship for grant of waiver u/s. 35F is made out. Hence, the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in Benara Valves Ltd. and Others (supra) is not attracted now. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
