2010 (2) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ken up for hearing after the stay application is disposed off and the appellants comply with the direction, if any, contained in the stay order. Moreover, the said application wrongly states that the total amount of Rs. 3.90 crores has been blocked in addition to the interest which does not appear to be correct. Hence, the Department is given a chance to rectify the figures in the said application and the same is kept pending for disposal afterwards. 3. We have heard both sides extensively in respect of the stay application filed by the appellants. 4. At the outset, we note that appellants have no financial difficulty whatsoever to make the pre-deposit required under the law nor any financial hardship has been claimed or argued before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The learned Advocate Shri Monish Panda is unable to explain clearly the use of the impugned goods and the chemical reactions that take place in the process of using the impugned input. He is not conversant with the technical details and hence, the said details can be gone into only at the final hearing stage. (iii) The learned Advocate cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gas Authority of India Ltd. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) in support of the case of the appellants. We find that the said decision has been rendered on the factual aspect of that case, namely that in the show cause notice in that case, there was no allegation that lean gas was the final product. In this case, w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inal product have been furnished. On the other hand, the appellants have claimed in writing that no dutiable input is used for the purpose of manufacture of sulphur. Hence, the stand taken by the appellants appear to be self contradictory apart from the fact that the demand not being sustainable on the ground of limitation was never taken before the Committee on Disputes nor any clearance has been obtained for pursuing the appeal on that ground. We also find that the adjudicating Commissioner has dealt with the issue of limitation and given a finding against the appellants. 5. The adjudication order vide para 39 and 41 has brought out a case of suppression of vital fact without disclosing exact use of input viz., Diethyl Amine while Cenv....