9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2007, whereby direction was given to the petitioners to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs against the demand of duty of Rs. 1,14,67,020/-, for hearing the appeal on merits. 2. We have noted from the records that when the Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), he directed pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs against the said demand, on the ground of hardship. Now, Commissioner (Appeals) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, can be insisted. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the financial hardship while giving direction for deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Texplast Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India [2005 (182) E.L.T. 150 (Guj.)]. 5. In the latest decision of their lordships in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged duty amount from the customers, and therefore the manufacturer is only a custodian of the amount of duty on behalf of the Government. Therefore, normally financial hardship does not come in the way to deposit that duty amount, as that is not the amount of the manufacturer, but it is an amount of the Government. In the instant case, we have seen that the Tribunal has directed to deposit only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
