2004 (5) TMI 479

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tes, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - By Stay Order No. 257/2003, dated 27-8-2003, we had directed the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 45 lakhs within 3 months and report compliance on 4-12-2003. We had also directed the appeal to be posted for final hearing out of turn, taking into account the high....

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 Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in that case. The Commissioner (Appeals), in that case, had granted the benefit of Notification No. 125/84-C.E., ibid to the assessee. Ld. Counsel, on this basis, claims a strong prima facie case for M/s. Jumbo Bags Ltd., and prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty in excess of Rs. 5 lakhs already deposited. He further submits that the party has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation, the appellants have pointed out that the decision in Pratap Singh (Supra) had not arisen for consideration by the Larger Bench in the case of Himalaya International Ltd. They have thus sought to discount the precedent value of Himalaya International Ltd., (supra). In the cross-objections of the department, it has been pointed out to the effect that Pratap Singh (supra) is not good law afte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal's order that the party had filed the above SLP. Hence ld. SDR has argued that the dismissal of the SLP filed by Pratap Singh Kamat did not have the effect of overruling the Larger Bench decision on the first question in Himalaya International (supra). We are in full agreement with this argument of the SDR. Obviously, then, the miscellaneous order passed by the WZB is of no aid to the....