2000 (7) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  The stay & appeal challenges the dismissal of appeal under Section 35F of the Act for non-compliance of interim stay order by Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of final order No. 11/2000 (M-I) dated 10-2-2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his interim order had directed the appellants to pre-deposit the entire duty amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... charges but it pertained to other expenses as confirmed by the Asst. Commissioner. It is his contention that appellants are liable to duty as confirmed in CIO as all these were subsequent to the removal of goods from the factory gate. 3. Ld. DR. Shri M. Kunhikannan points out that the expenses are includible as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4 of the OIA wherein he has noted t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able value. Ld. DR submits as appellants do not have a strong prima facie case, hence they are required to pre-deposit the amounts valuable, if their appeal is to be considered by Commissioner (Appeals). 4. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the issues are contentious and arguable in nature. Appellants have also pleaded hardship in the matter and they contended tha....