TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant to make pre-deposit vide its order dated 14-11-2005. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, which as on 1-9-2006 has set aside the said order of the Tribunal with the direction to decide their application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act afresh in the light of principles laid-down in the case of ITC v. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 347 (All.) and considering the affidavit filed by the applicant stating therein their financial conditions. 3. The guidelines referred to by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, reproduced in the said order is as follows :- "In view of the above, the aforesaid authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of deposit should also be allowed where two view are possible. While considering the application for interim relief, the Court must examine all pros and cons involved in the case further examine that in case recovery is not stayed, the right of appeal conferred by the legislature and refusal to exercise the discretionary power by the authority to stay/waive the pre-deposit condition, would be reduced to nugatory/illusory. Undoubtedly, the interest of the Revenue cannot be jeopardized but that does not mean that in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, the court or authority should exercise its duty under the law to take into consideration the rights and interest of an individual. It is also clear that before any good could be subje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....freely and but later on they had not co-operated with the department during adjudication. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant heavily relies upon this Tribunal's order in Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 73 (T). dealing with an identical situation as in the subject case, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the manufacturer on the ground that cross-examination of the dealers who had made adverse statements against the manufacturer was not granted by the adjudicating authority, further, it was argued that evidences as available in the form of trading bill etc. was not verified by the Commissioner. The learned Advocate was also able to demonstrate a few invoices on the record to show that w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on has taken place and when the hearing was granted to the appellant, the land and building of their factory premises was under the custody of the UPSIDC for their financial dues and the appellants have make attempts to made good of these dues by entering into a sale agreement with a third party. In the meanwhile, the department has also issued letter on 5-11-2004 to the third party (M/s Kunj Bihari Lal Charitable Trust) stating that the land and building of the unit has since been attached by them on 15-10-2004 under rule of the Custom (attachment of Property of Defaulter for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 as made applicable vide Notification No. 68/63-CE dated 4-5-63 as amended, advising the later not to go ahead with the said t....