2012 (9) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 80 lakhs. It appears from the records that the stay order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in a writ petition and that, before the Hon'ble High Court, the writ petitioner (appellant before us) offered to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs within a period of two weeks. The Hon'ble High Court accepted the offer and the party deposited the amount. In the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, however, it was also observed that it was open to the party to file a petition before this Tribunal if they wanted waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount. The present application has been filed by the appellant by exercising the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of tax. The Bench also considered their plea of limitation and took the view that they did not have a case on the ground of limitation either. It was also noted that any strong plea of financial hardships had not been made by the appellant. In the result, the appellant was directed to pre-deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 80 lakhs. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) viz., M/s. Strategic Engineering Private Limited, Manamadurai v. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai - 2011-TIOL-547-HC-MAD-S.T. = 2011 (24) S.T.R. 387 (Mad.), which was rendered on 8-8-2011. It is submitted that the cited judgment is an authority on the question wheth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... stay of recovery. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Our stay order reflects a well-considered prima facie view insofar as the appellant's prayer for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of demand of over Rs. 1.66 crores is concerned. The stay order clearly noted para 4.2 of the memorandum of appeal wherein the appellant had categorically admitted tax liability and limited their challenge to valuation. The stay order examined the valuation dispute in sufficient detail and expressed a prima facie view against the appellant. The plea of limitation raised by the appellant was also considered and a view taken thereon. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the direction to pre-deposit an amount o....