TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tish Kumar, SSC, for the Respondent. ORDER Issue notice. 2. Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent. 3. The substantial question of law which arises in these cases is :- "Whether in the circumstances of the case, the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act could have been di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly other appellants Sanjay Aggarwal was imposed penalty of Rs. 2 crores and M/s. Moongipa-one of the appellants was imposed penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs along with Krishna Freight Movers was also imposed penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. All the appellants as well as the said M/s. Sunrise Food Products approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) aggrieved by the order-in-origina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef to the extent of facilitating instalment payment through eight weekly instalments was permitted by the Court. However, M/s. Sunrise Food Products failed to comply with the direction and deposit the required amount, as a consequence of which its appeal as well as the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. The appellants approached the CESTAT for restoration of the appeal alleging that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....359. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions. A facial reading of the order of 30-9-2011 clarifies that it was M/s. Sunrise Food Products that was cast with the primary duty of Rs. 15 crores in order to qualify for waiver. The Tribunal stated that subject to such compliance the present appellants' applications were granted and they were not required to deposit any amount. However, the Tri....