TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents though Mr. Malkan had prayed for time on 15th July, 2005 and his request had been granted. 2. The limited issue which the Court is called upon to decide is whether the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT), while disposing of Stay Application No. E/S/2796/04-MUM vide order dated 29th March, 2005 was required or not to deal with the merits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the petitioner preferred appeal before the CESTAT. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had moved an application seeking stay of operation of the impugned order and dispense with making of pre-deposit. On 29th March, 2005, CESTAT made an order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs treating the same as sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording facts in paragraph Nos. 1 to 7 of its order, the 'Tribunal has in paragraph No. 8 stated that, "The appellants pleaded financial hardship and the matter is said to be pending before the BIFR". Thereafter, in paragraph No. 9, reference to Supreme Court decision in case of Metal Box [2003 (155) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)] has been made to state that an absolute waiver cannot be granted. The final dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated upon the prima facie balance of convenience in the case. The Appellate Authority should have addressed its mind to the prima facie merits of the appellants' case and upon being satisfied of the same determined the quantum of deposit taking into consideration the financial hardship and other such relevant factors. 6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29th March, 2005 (Annexure "S") is here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
