2014 (5) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....directed against the orders dated 27.12.2012 and 25.02.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (for short 'the CESTAT'), rejecting an application bearing Misc. Order No.25230/2013 in Customs Appeal Nos.919, 929 & 599/2010. The appeals were directed against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, calling ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., as aforementioned, for main taining/ filling the appeal as contemplated under Section 129E of the Act. 2. In short, what is under challenge in the present appeals is the order, whereby, the prayer of the appellant to examine, whether he was liable to pay the amount demanded (duty and interest or the penalty levied) even before depositing of the amount as per the order dated 27.12.2012 passed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise and Customs, Government of India. 4. We have perused the impugned order as well as the orders dated 27.12.2012, 25.02.2013 and so also the order passed by the Commissioner dated 30.11.2009. We have also perused the Section 129E of the Act. 5. Section 129E of the Act provides that, wherein any appeal under Chapter-XV, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty and interest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d is likely to cause "undue hardship" to such person. In the present case, the ground on which the dispensation of deposit sought was on merits. In other words, it was on the ground that the demand itself is wrong and illegal. Thus, the appellant was expecting the Tribunal to examine the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs on the grounds rai....