TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents. Mr. Malkan placed on record the reply affidavit. 2. Show cause notice dated 21-3-1991 was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why excise duty of Rs. 5,72,852.29 ps. should not be imposed under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Act and also penalty on the petitioner and the goods should also not be confiscated. Thereafter, Collector, Central Excise passed order-in-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h law after considering the submissions of the petitioner (Annexure 'G'). It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of this, the respondent No. 2 initiated second round of proceedings against the petitioner by raising issues which were already decided earlier by the CEGAT and once again the order-in-original was passed on 30-5-2003 imposing the same duty of Rs. 5,72,852.29 ps. and penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of Rs. 3 lacs, the appeal was ordered to be placed for hearing (Annexure 'L'). This impugned order dated 2-6-2004 passed by the CESTAT on application C/S/244/ 2004 in Appeal No. C/313/2004 is challenged in this petition. 3. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Malkan relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this very Court delivered on 10-9-2004 in Special Civil Application No. 11489 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit of duty and penalty amount considering the financial condition of the petitioner. In the second round of litigation before the CESTAT, this very ground was taken by the petitioner in the stay application in Para 7(K) and in ground 7(L), it was contended that the applicant's financial condition was in a bad shape due to business losses and poor liquidity. There was no counter to it. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
