9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 1995 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for waiver in part. The petitioner had applied for dispensing with the pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs. 2,86,036/- demand from the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad, which was the subject matter of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was also not considered in passing the impugned order. It was urged that the financial position of the petitioner was not such that the petitioner could make the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as directed by the Appellate Tribunal. 4.I have considered the submission carefully, but in my opinion there is no substance in any one of them. From the stay-cum-waiver application a copy of which has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial position of the petitioner was such that it could not pay even an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the extent to which the waiver application was not accepted. From the balance-sheet it appears that as on 31st March, 1995 the petitioner had stock in trade to the extent of Rs. 48,58,938/- and Sundry Debtors of the value of Rs. 63,98,353/-. It is difficult to believe that between 31st March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uid funds available to the petitioner would be much more than Rs. 52,846/-. 5.The other contention that the Appellate Tribunal had not considered the prima facie case of the petitioner, is equally devoid of merit. The Tribunal has in fact considered the case of the petitioner and has recorded a finding that the question raised in the appeal was one of fact and the decision thereon would depend on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. 8.After the order had been dictated, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may be permitted a period of two months to make the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- directed by the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. If the petitioner makes the said deposit within a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
