1994 (3) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 2,87,500/- was paid and that the Bench had further ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. He pleaded that since the amount which is due is Rs. 1,10,000/- and the applicant had already paid Rs. 2,87,500/- including this amount and as such the order should be modified. He pleaded for the modification of the order. Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR who is present on behalf of the Respondent, pleaded that there is no case for any modification of the order. He pleaded for the rejecion of the application. 2. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicants were directed to deposit Rs.1,10,000/- within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. We had enquired from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Co-operative Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 169 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court paras Nos. 9, 10 and 11 from the said judgment are reproduced below : *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Collector of C. Excise v. Dunlop India reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 in para No. 13 had held as under : *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * 5. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had also occasion to deal with the case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;  *    * 9. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Daryao & Others v. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1457 [Para 11] have held as under : *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * 10. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Spencers & Co. Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Central Excise in Application No. 332/84 in Appeal No. 693/84 which was followed in the case of Sonodyne Television Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 582 (Trib.) had held as under :- *    *    *    *    *    *&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ose so as to safeguard the interest of the revenue. These provisions will not have any purposes and provisions will become redundant. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi reported in A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 430 had held as under : "The power of stay by the Tribunal is not likely to be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course in view of the special nature of taxation and revenue laws. It will only be when a strong prima facie case is made out that the tribunal will consider whether to stay the recovery proceedings and on what conditions and the stay will be granted in most deserving and appropriate cases where the tribunal is satisfied that the entire purpose of the appeal will be frus....