9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.4, N.K.Chaudhury, Advocate for Applicant No.5 & 6. Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Ld.Counsels appearing in the following Stay Applications have caused their presence. Sl. No. Stay Application & Appeal No. Appearance 1. SP-75067/16 (E-75131/16) Shri K.P.Dey, Advocate 2. SP-75069/16 (E-75134/16) Shri Sourav Bagaria, Advocate & Shri Partha Banerjee, Advocate 3. SP-75070/16 (E-75142/16) Shri Sourav Bagaria, Advocate & Shri Pranav Sharma, Advocate 4. SP-75120/16 (E-75229/16) Shri Anil Agarwal, CA 5. SP-75153/16 (E-75251/16) Shri N.K.Chaudhary, Advocate 6. SP-75152/16 (E-75252/16) -do- 2. It is the submission on behalf of all the Appellants in the above Sl.Nos. of the Cause Lis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned. 5. Looking to merits of the case at this interim stage we are guided by the decision of this Tribunal passed vide Order No.FO/A/75321-75354/2015 dated 30.06.2015, denying the benefit of exemption Notification holding as under in respect of manufacture using brand name of others : "36. A plain reading of the aforesaid observation of their Lordships makes it clear that on affixing the brand name/trade name of another person, an assessee would be ineligible to avail the benefit of the exemption notification. It flows from the said observation that it is not necessary to examine the reason/cause for affixing the brand-name of another person. It is also clearly laid down that trade do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. We make it clear that while determining liability in respect of Notification benefit, the decision of the Tribunal in para 37 of the Order in respect of normal period shall be applicable as the basis for calculation of the percentage prescribed above to make the pre-deposit. 10. It is placed by Shri Sourabh Bagaria, ld.Advocate that the Appellant in Sl.No.3 is a BIFR company. We make clear that public revenue cannot be forgone with misplaced sympathy that the company is a BIFR company in view of the Apex Court's Judgement in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and Others [1985 (19) ELT 22 (SC)]. Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed its anxiety to save public revenue. In thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the very practices which were to be prevented by the seizure. We have come across cases where land reform and important welfare legislations have been stayed by courts. Incalculable harm has been done by such interim orders. All this is not to say that interim orders may never be made against public authorities. There are, of course, cases which demand that interim orders should be made in the interests of justice. Where gross violations of the law and injustices are perpetrated or are about to be perpetrated, it is the bounden duty of the Court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen's faith in the imparti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
