TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 1.11.2011. Thereafter the applicant filed restoration application which was allowed vide Misc. order No. 110/12 Ex(Br) dated 18.1.12 and the stay petition was disposed of vide stay order No. 192/2012 Ex (Br), directing the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.one crore out of total confirmed demand of Rs.1.35 crores. 3. On going through the said stay order, we find that issue involved is availability of Cenvat credit in respect of various iron and steel items used as supporting structures in the appellants' factor. The issue finally stand decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE [2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB)]. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nothing to submit inasmuch as he fairly agrees that the issue stand decided by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. However, it is the contention of the learned advocate that the demand, even though within the limitation period is prior to declaration of law by the Larger Bench except one month. The said contention of the learned advocate is strongly contested by the learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Revenue by submitting that Section 11A of Central Excise Act allows raising of demand within the normal period of limitation of one year even if there is no suppression or malafide etc. The demand having been raised within the period of limitation as provided under Section 11A of the Act, is justified an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal and the appellant has even now not produced any documents evidencing/proving their financial hardship. The jurisdictional officer has reported that from the returns filed by the appellant it is seen that their quantum of business has increased. In order to examine their current financial condition, the jurisdictional Central Excise officer has produced a chart showing details of production of finished goods by the appellant indicating that during the period from April, 2012 to October, 2012, the production and clearance of Sponge iron is 493550 and 948830 Kg more as compared to the production and clearance of sponge iron during the corresponding period of the previous year. Similarly, applicant has paid more duty to the tune of Rs.54 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave not placed any document/evidence on record reflecting upon their poor financial condition. As already discussed two letters addressed to the Bank exchequer, throws no light on their actual financial condition. On the other hand, we note that the report of jurisdictional Additional Commissioner (Rev) is very clear indicating progress in business of the appellant inasmuch as the production is admittedly higher than the previous corresponding period and payment of duty is also on the higher side. 11. In view of the above, it is well settled that the legal, issue stand against the assessee and there is no financial difficulty in depositing the amount in question, the interest of the Revenue is required to be protected. It may not be out ....