2001 (3) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this application, the appellants have prayed for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1,29,032/- and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants, engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel Ingots/Billets under compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tested the allegations. In adjudication of the dispute, the Commissioner rejected the abatement claim on the second ground aforesaid and further directed the party to pay the amount of Rs. l,29,032/- (for which abatement was claimed). Hence the present appeal and the stay application. 3. Ld. Advocate, Shri Ajay Jain submits that the applicants have a strong prima facie case on the basis th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the abatement claim. Ld. JDR further submits that, for the purpose of getting the benefit of abatement, the claimant should fulfil all the mandatory requirements of Rule 96ZO(2). But the applicants did not satisfy the requirement of clause (e) of the above rule. In this connection, ld. JDR has relied on the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Avis Electronics [2000 (117) E.L....