TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal dated 16-11-1999 and Order-in-Original dated 16-4-1998 and for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 69,22,874.48. The appellants also had claimed a refund of Rs. 1,19,33,023.47 which had also been rejected as per the impugned order. 2. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri M. Chandra Sekharan, along with advocates Shri K.K. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the applicant to defend its case. Further, the orders which have been passed by the appellants are contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the MRF case relating to deductions of post-manufacturing expenses from the price arrived at under Section 4. 3. Ld. SDR Shri P.K. Jain submits that in view of the recen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e waived, we accept the plea of the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount as well as for stay of recovery of the said amount during the pendency of their appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly, the pre-deposit of the duty amount is waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal filed by the applicant in Appeal No. E/855/2000-A. 6. The matter to come up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
