2014 (2) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,12,500/out of a penalty imposed of Rs.12.50 lakhs for the purposes of entertaining the petitioner's appeal on merits from the order dated 31 December 2012 of the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2 Normally, we would have directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal as provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the orders of the Tribunal. However in view of the peculiar facts of this case, namely the impugned order being passed without having heard the petitioner and also in view of the grave financial difficulties/hardship being pleaded by the petitioner as supported by its income tax returns for the Assessment Year 201314, we are exercising our extra ordinary jurisdiction in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation pleaded financial hardship but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. Moreover, attention was also drawn to the income tax returns for the last three years which shows gross income varying from Rs.16,000/to Rs.34,000/. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that the complete waiver be granted and the Tribunal be directed to hear the petitioner on merits. It is also contended that the petitioner's had sought adjournment only once and not on four occasion as recorded in the impugned order dated 11 November, 2013. 7 On the other hand Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue submits that the impugned order dated 11 November 2013 called for no interference. Besides the petitioner had on earlier occasions sou....