2014 (1) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in this case are Public Sector Undertaking and this Tribunal on similar issue for the earlier period, July, 2004 to March, 2005, has allowed their application for waiver of pre-deposit vide Order No. S-651/Kol/2012 dated 04.07.2012, and the Appeals were fixed for hearing on 08.10.2012. He has contended that these applications involve the period from April, 2005 to March, 2011, accordingly, the pre-deposit may be waived and the present Appeals be linked for hearing with the said Appeals. 3. The ld. Spl. Counsel, Shri D. K. Acharyya (A.R.), appearing for the Department, has submitted that the present issue relates to classification of CTPD and all these stay applications & Appeals are almost identically worded. The contention is that he h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Guntur Vs. Shri Chaitanya Educational Committee reported in 2011 (22) STR 135 (A.P.), even if there is a strong prima-facie case on merits, the interest of the Revenue be safeguarded. 4. In his rejoinder, Dr. Samir Chakraborty, ld. Advocate of the applicants has submitted that, in fact, all the facilities to manufacture of PCM had been dismantled and this fact was brought to the notice of the Department. This fact has been specifically mentioned by them in their memo of appeal before this Tribunal and also during the course of hearing of their stay application. Responding to the reply dated 25th March, 1998, filed by the Appellant, the ld. Advocate submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r 1987 and the chemical examiner report was in their favour; also the said reply dated 25.3.98 was related only one notice and got amended in 2004, however, prima-facie, in the reply dated 25.3.98, they had accepted that PCM and CTPD were one and the same product. The ld. Advocate rebutted the plea of the department saying that in their subsequent reply filed by them substituted all their earlier replies and the chemical test has been in favour of them. We observe that this fact was not specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal earlier. We agree with the ld. Counsel for the Department that in disposal of the application seeking waiver of predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, besides, prima-facie case, the in....