TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35F thereof as also a final order dated 15-10-2012, dismissing the appeal itself, for not complying with it are questioned. 3. In order to demonstrate how Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ought to have applied its mind, while considering the application under Section 35F of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported at (2006) 13 SCC 347 = 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, reported at (2004) 3 Mh. L.J. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to claim full exemption. He contends that when impugned order is viewed in this background, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in it. In the absence of appropriate material also, CESTAT has followed the law as laid down in case of other units and asked the appellant to deposit only 25% of the duty amount as pre-deposit. He submits that the total waiver sought was of amount in excess of Rs. Three crores and in case of other unit in similar circumstances, CESTAT had asked that assessee to deposit 50% of the duty amount and 25% of the penalty amount. The said amount was modified by this Court and only 25% of the duty was directed to be deposited. 6. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Benara Va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of unit of the present appellant and its taking over by the financial institution. This was pointed out as a factor sufficient to show undue hardship caused to the appellant. 9. We fail to understand how mere closure or then taking over by the financial institution ipso facto is sufficient to demonstrate undue hardship. In the light of material produced before us, we find that there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the application of mind by the CESTAT. However, CESTAT has thereafter proceeded further, noted adjudication by this Court in the case of another unit and asked the present appellant to deposit 25% of the duty within eight weeks. The appellant has sought waiver of duty of Rs. 3,09,23,873/- plus interest and penalt....