2015 (10) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred by Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though the issue of financial hardship has not been raised but the petitioner is not financially sound so as to comply with the order of the Commissioner. Secondly, he submits that the Commissioner omitted from consideration completely the documents and has imposed an unreasonable condition for stay of the order under appeal. That condition cannot be complied with because it is totally onerous and arbitrary. A sum of Rs. 35 lakhs has been directed to be deposited which amounts to entire Central Excise duty demanded. For all these reasons and this is the second time the petitioner is required to approach this Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd, it is not possible for us to go into these documents because that would amount to deciding the issue pending before the appellate authority and on merits. It has been rightly held by the appellate authority that the show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate. He passed order on 30-3-2012. confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 34,94,179/- along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act as applicable during the relevant period. Further penalty of Rs. 34,94,179/- has also been imposed. On the earlier occasion and even now all that the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the petitioner is to deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. However, the Petitioner is not satisfied....