2005 (6) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  The appellant is required to pre-deposit duty of Rs. 6,17,71,434/- and penalty of Rs. 12 crores. The appellant is a PSU Unit. They have obtained clearance from the Committee of Secretaries. The issue in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is required to pay the differential ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the Board's Circular. However, he has differed from them, which he should not have done in terms of judicial discipline. He submits that the issue has been concluded and the subsidy they received from the Government to pay the dues of duty on these two elements is not liable to be added in the assessable value. He relies on a large number of judgments and the judgment delivered in their own ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....binding on the Commissioner. The ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellants are citing judgments delivered in their own case. The prima facie case being in their favour, hence, the stay application is to be allowed. The mere financial hardship is not a consideration while granting waiver of pre-deposit as held by a large number of High Court judgments including A....