9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed against the petitioner resulting into raising a demand of Rs. 81,68,304/- on account of duty and Rs. 35 lakhs on account of fine with a penalty of Rs. 35,04,000/-. The petitioner sought for waive of pre-deposit and stay of the recovery. On 14th February, 1997, the Tribunal passed an order under Section 35F of the Act, directing the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs be deposited within a period of three m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terature made available by the petitioner. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order of adjudication after taking into consideration the technical literature produced by the petitioner as also certain circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 4.When the order of remand was passed, the learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be taken as an inherent power conferred on an Appellate Tribunal and there is nothing wrong if while exercising such a power to make a remand, the Tribunal chooses to qualify it by conditions without which the order of remand itself would not have been made. We have specifically asked the learned Counsel for the respondents if there is any statutory power or any principle of law conferring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once the order of adjudication was set aside, the Tribunal could not have ordered the amount of pre-deposit to be retained awaiting the order of adjudication. There is no provision in the law requiring certain amount to be retained as a pre-deposit pending finalisation of the adjudication proceedings. As the amount is being withheld without any authority of law, it is liable to be refunded. 9.Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
