2015 (10) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The appellant is before us challenging order dated 28-7-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores within a period of 12 weeks as a pre-condition to the hearing of its appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the statute does n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue has been added. The order passed by the Tribunal may, therefore, be modified and the appellant may be allowed to deposit 7.5% of the amount of duty demanded by the Revenue. 3. Counsel for the Revenue submits that amendment of Section 35F of the Act does not apply to the appellant as the appeal has been filed prior to the amendment of provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant, M/s. Shyam Salona Plywood is required to be put to some terms of deposit. The said applicant has not pleaded any financial hardships and has not drawn our attention to any evidence on record in support of their poor financial condition. As such, taking into account the facts that the said applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 45 lacs during the course of investigation, we direct th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posit assessed by the Tribunal is too steep and may render the right to agitate the appeal illusory. It would be appropriate to point out that Legislature has, during pendency of the appeal, amended Section 35F of the Act by requiring an assessee to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded. The amendment may not apply to the appellant as the appeal was filed before the amendment but taking a clue from le....