2011 (7) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Appeal as follows :- "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellants to deposit Rs. 11.52 lakhs under Section 35F of the Act? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellants have not made out a prima facie case for total waiver of duty, interest and penalty on totally extraneous grounds?" 2. The Appeal is admitted and is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage, by consent. 3. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur by an order dated 1st June 2009 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,15,46,696/- on the Appellant un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contrary decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the cost of scrap in the assessable value of the product and until 10th March 2005 the Tribunal had taken the view that the price of scrap sold was not to be included in the assessable value. Hence, the Tribunal was of the view that only a part of the demand was within limitation and no suppression could be alleged. Nonetheless, the Tribunal was of the view that a case for complete waiver had not been made out. Accordingly, the Appellant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 11.52 lacs, representing approximately the demand for duty within the normal period of limitation, within a period of eight weeks. 6. The Tribunal relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reconsideration. 9. Insofar as the preliminary objection on the ground of jurisdiction is concerned, at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the fact that the impugned order was rendered by a Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai. In Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 the Supreme Court held that where a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court that Bench would have jurisdiction to entertain a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same principle has been reiterated in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Customs v. Standard Industr....