9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted September 14, 2001 and October 18, 2001, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P. 10 and P. 12 be quashed. By the first order, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh, has disposed of the petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit. It has been observed that the adjudicating Authority had raised a demand of Rs. 3,46,31,643/-. The petitioner was direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35F ? 5.Mr. Sarin contends that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. M/s. Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 1999 [2001 (132) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.)], the view taken by the Authority that excise duty is leviable, cannot be sustained. It was on the basis of this positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finds that "the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship" that it can dispense with the requirement of deposit. In the present case, nothing has been pointed out to show that the petitioner shall suffer an undue hardship. In this situation, we find that the order of the Authority is in conformity with the provisions of Section 35F. We are intentionally not dealing with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
