TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent : Shri Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate ORDER Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon , J. In the instant appeal, the appellant is aggrieved by order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby stay application filed by the appellant (against recovery of Rs.35,01,028/- and an equal amount of penalty imposed upon it by the Original Authority and con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valent during the period in question. On being pointed out, an amount of Rs.5,67,730/- was deposited by the appellant along with interest of Rs.67,656/-. The appellant was served with a show cause notice to deposit excess credit availed to the tune of Rs.37,81,186/- with interest and penalty contemplated under Rule 15 of the Credit Rules. The adjudicating authority, however, confirmed demand of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty along with interest (after adjusting the deposit already made) within eight weeks of the order in terms of the statutory provisions and stay of penalty had been granted only subject to compliance of the aforesaid condition. Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is in extreme financial distress and therefore, is not in a position to pay the entire amount of duty along with int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hand, contends that the respondents have not found any case of financial hardship. This apart, it has been held that the demand is not time barred and the appellant was not entitled to claim Cenvat credit etc., the order declining the relief under Section 25-F of the Act is legal and valid. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book and the relevant provisions of law. The c....