1998 (12) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- vocate, for the Appellant. Shri C.P. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The application is for modification of the stay order, and for correcting errors therein. 2. The Tribunal had asked the applicant to deposit Rs 10.00 crores out of the demands of duty from two factories totalling Rs. 20.15 crores and penalties of equivalent amount and pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty demand of Rs. 6.27 crores. While agreeing that there is no precedent in such matters, he contends that the issues are identical and there is no significant difference in the case of present applicant which justifies it being asked to deposit amounts for higher than the others. He also points out that the order does not take note of the fact that there were two factories involving three deman....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nning period in question. In the present case, as the Tribunal observed, the applicant had specifically taken a stand in reply to a query by the officers as to the difference between the two kinds of tyres that they were different in terms of structure and one. It had indicated the number of points of difference. However, we do not find, for the purpose of this deposit, any significant difference ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er that interest of justice would require a further reduction on the basis of the order in the MFR Ltd's case. A total of Rs. 6.00 crores would be appropriate. This would be appropriated in the following manner - Rs. 5.28 crores towards stay application E/Stay-1618/98, Rs. 42.00 lacs towards stay application E/Stay-1622/98 and Rs. 30.00 lacs towards stay application R/Stay-1620/98. 7. The ....