TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for waiver of pre-deposit. 2. The CESTAT had before it a batch of matters in which the allegation is that the assessees, who manufacture and sell M.S. ingots, had clandestinely cleared manufactured goods by suppressing the actual production. In each of the cases a notice to show cause was issued to the assessees. The main demands for duty, as the Tribunal noted, were by and large based on the consumption of electricity which was found to have been suppressed by the parties. The demand for duty was based on the consumption of electricity in the manufacture of one Ton of M.S. ingots, a norm of consumption being applied. Upon adjudication, differing amounts of duty and penalty were demanded in all the six cases. 3. Counsel appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor) Order-in- Original 1-6-2009 1-10-2009 31-12-2009 1-6-2009 31-12-2008 26-2-2010 OIA - 30-9-2010 - - - - CESTAT Order date & no. 28-2-2011 11-7-2011 11-7-2011 28-2-2011 28-2-2011 8-7-2011 CESTAT Ordered 50% duty & 25% penalty 50% Duty & 0.10 crs penalty on director 50% Duty & 0.10 crs penalty on director 50% duty & 25% penalty 50% duty & 25% penalty 0.125 crs on the basis of following Bom. HC order in Trimurti's own case. 4. The Tribunal by its common order has directed the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Mithulal Gupta Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik [Appeal Nos. E 676 and 677 of 2009, with Stay Applications No. E/Stay-977 and 978 of 2009]. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant further pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2009 (3) Bom.C.R, 306 = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 490 (Bom.), has observed that once the Tribunal has granted full waiver in similar cases, it would not be proper to take a different view and deny waiver of pre-deposit. According to Mr. Godsay, the Division Bench has not denied the waiver of pre-deposit and, in stead, has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Gupta Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik, Appeal Nos. E 676 and 677 of 2009, with Stay Applications No. E/Stay-977 and 978 of 2009 [2011 (270) E.L.T. 231 (Tribunal)], is distinguishable; (ii) Before the CESTAT reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Triveni Rubber and Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) wherein a demand of duty arrived at by assessing the normal production on the basis of the electricity consumption was upheld by the Supreme Court after examining the provisions of Rule 173-E of the Central Excise Rules 1944. 7. We have considered the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench dated 20 July 2011. Before the Aurangaba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 9-7-2010 in the case of Nashik Strips Ltd. (supra)." 9. The Division Bench of this Court has not come to any conclusion to the contrary. The order of the Division Bench does not contain any finding that the decision in Nasik Strips was on similar facts. All that the Division Bench recorded was the submission of counsel for the assessee. On that basis, without entering any finding, even prima facie, at this stage the Division Bench remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. Ordinarily in a matter such as the present, a Division Bench of this Court would be inclined to follow the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench particularly at the interim stage on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. We are, however, not inclined to do so for ....