2009 (10) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent. [Order per A.L. Dave, J. (Oral)]. - The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-IV), Central Excise, Ahmedabad, on 14.09.2009, in Stay Order No.38(ST)/2009, requiring the petitioner to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ether Notification No.25/2004 would apply prospectively or retrospectively, though it was argued. He submitted further that a contention was raised regarding limitation on the action for the reason that it is not a case of suppression and, therefore, the action ought to have been initiated within one year; whereas the action is initiated beyond the period of one year, as if there is suppression. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise, 2006(204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) in support of his submissions. 4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. We have also examined the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in this petition. 5. At the outset, we may observe that the order impugned in this petition is an interim/interlocutory order, and the submissions made on behalf of the petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hether there is suppression or not and which period of limitation would apply; whether one year or five years. This would again amount to entering into the merits of the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was conscious about this situation and, therefore, he has, in terms, observed that the case is required to be discussed in detail on merits at the time of hearing of the main appeal. He has also ob....