TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rim order of stay granted by this Court on 12.10.2012 2. We have heard Mr. G. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.R. Bhaskar, learned Sr. CGSC appearing for the respondent - the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 3. Appeals though purporting to be under Section 35G of the Act are those directed against the order dated 10.02.1012 passed by the Tribunal on Stay Application Nos.E/STAY/785 TO 796/2010 pending appeals in Appeal No.E/1364 to 1375/2010 before the Tribunal was an application under Section 35F of the Act for waiver of the amount in deposit, which was the subject matter of appeals and which was without any dispute of the value of Rs. 26,00,00,000/-. The Tribunal on examination of the application p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o prefer appeals. It is in this background the present appeals are preferred and this court in terms of the order dated 12.10.2012 granted interim stay. It is thereafter the respondent - revenue after having been served has come up with the application I.A.IV/2012 for vacating the order of stay. 7. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal having regard to the limited scope involved in these appeals. The appeals are preferred only against an order passed on the applications under Section 35F of the Act seeking for waiver of pre-deposit. We notice that the Tribunal itself in fact had granted waiver to the extent of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- which was the requirement of deposit and directed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hand, Mr. Bhaskar, learned Sr. CGSC has brought to our notice the order passed by the Tribunal, particularly, at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 wherein the Tribunal has considered the prima facie case and has also looked into the financial position of the assessee, as indicated at paragraph No. 6. The Tribunal was of the opinion, that there was not much prima facie case, noticing the financial position as on 31.03.2011. And it is because of this reason the Tribunal ordered deposit of only Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and not the entire amount of Rs. 26,00,00,000/- as per the requirement of Section 35F of the Act. Proviso came to the rescue of the assessee for waiver of deposit of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. 10. While we find the judgment of the Supreme Court is a....