2014 (3) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial question of law:- "Whether in facts & circumstances of the present case the Appellate Tribunal is correct in directing the Appellant to deposit Rs.40 lacs as a pre-condition to hear the matter on merits when the entire issue is covered by the ruling of coordinate bench in Appellant's own case for the previous period?" 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and is engaged in the manufacture of Back Plates and Anti Noise Shims. A show cause notice dated 1.5.2012 (Annexure A-2) was issued by the respondent for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.1.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty and penalty which was about Rs. 5 crores whereas in the present case, it was Rs. 3 crores and the Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 40 lacs. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana and others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461, it was urged that there should be principle of consistency and binding precedent and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar cases. The requirement of Rs. 40 lacs as a pre-deposit in the present case was unreasonable and unjustified. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. In the matter of interim orders, no strict rules of precedents are applicable. However, in the present ....