2006 (2) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The original authority demanded duty of Rs. 16,59,858/- from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication of its order on the ground of financial hardships. It appears, this application was not considered by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, upon finding that the pre-deposit directed had not been made, dismissed the assessees' appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35F. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel has claimed strong prima facie case for the appellants. It is su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement, admitted that they were not owners of the brand names in question. She further submits that this statement was never retracted. In view of this admission, it was not necessary for the adjudicating authority to gather any evidence through cross-examination of the witnesses cited by the appellants. 5.  After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the confessiona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mstances, we are of the view that the appellants should be given a more sympathetic consideration for the purpose of Section 35F. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) asked them to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs for this purpose. We reduce this amount to Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants shall deposit this amount of Rs. 1 lakh for the purpose of their appeal being heard on merits by the lower appellate authority. 6. ....