AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.M. No. 3898/2014
Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CEAC No. 8/2014
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant but are not inclined to interfere with the substantive portion of the order passed by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal in the interim order directing pre-deposit show that they have referred to the material in form of duplicate invoices, etc., which were obtained from the bank to show that there was evasion of excise duty by not declaring correct and full production. The period involved is 1989-92.
In the present case, it is accepted that the challenge before the Tribunal is to the actual amount of duty said to be evaded and the appellant has been asked to deposit 25% of the duty amount. Appellant is not required to make any pre-deposit on account of penalty etc. Looking at the factual findings recorded by the tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum, i.e., 25% of the duty amount. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that time may be extended as the appellant has to arrange for funds. It is also stated that the appeal, which was pending before the Tribunal, has been dismissed during the pendency of the present appeal before the High Court. Keeping in view the submissions made, we extend the time for making payment of 25% of the duty amount by four months from today by way of four equal monthly instalments. In case the payment is made as aforesaid, the appeal will be restored and taken up for hearing in terms of order dated 27th November, 2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of.