2013 (6) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner herein impugns the order dated 21-5-2012, Annexure P.4 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") whereby it has been required to deposit the whole amount of duty i.e. Rs. 8,08,572/- as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal by the Tribunal. 2. Briefly, the facts a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he goods exported by the petitioner were not composed of 100% acrylic and so it was liable to pay duty on goods imported without payment of duty. Show Cause Notice dated 23-7-2002 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,08,572/- and also imposed fine of Rs. 2 lacs and penalty of Rs. 1 lac (Annexure P.1). A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n such a situation, great hardship would be caused to the petitioner in case it is required to deposit the demand of duty of Rs. 8,08,572/-. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 5. The goods which were for export were provisionally released on the request of the petitioner subject to test report of CRCL, N....