TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 80,72,573.45 be not recovered from them and as to why they be not penalized for contravening the various provisions of the Excise Act and Rules. Subsequently, on 11-3-1998, Central Excise Meerut adjudicated the case vide order dated 11-3-1998 and confirmed the demand duty. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed an appeal along with the stay waiver appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 35F of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that once appeal has been disposed of by quashing the order passed by the Commissioner, hence there remained no tax or penalty payable by the petitioner nor there was any appeal pending before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, no amount of deposit could be asked to be deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 35F. In this connection I refer to two decisions one reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 29 (All.) - M/s. K.S. Steel Works v. Union of India and another reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) - M/s. Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India. In the Allahabad decision, this Court was pleased to hold that once in appeal the Tribunal had set aside the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Section 35F of the Act. As such, there shall be stay of pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs as directed by the Tribunal dated 14th July, 1998. 4. However, this order will not prevent the Commissioner to proceed on the basis of the aforesaid show cause notice and may pass appropriate order after giving proper hearing to the petitioner. 5. The writ petition will be heard in due course. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
