2016 (4) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the first respondent. 2. The Department is in appeal against the reliefs granted by the learned single Judge. 3. We have heard the learned Senior standing counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). A pre-deposit waiver order was sought for coupled with a request for stay of recovery. An order was issued by the CESTAT granting waiver except to the extent of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. That was appealed against before this Court. In appellate jurisdiction, the amount required to be deposited was trimmed down to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The first respondent carr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecial leave petition. He argued that there is absolutely no legal foundation or jurisdictional basis on the impugned judgment. 6.Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that his client has deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- and has accounted the remaining Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the CENVAT credit which is due to the first respondent and, therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the directions issued by the learned single Judge. 7. We have considered the contents of Ext.P5, which is the judgment issued by the Division Bench in central excise appeal No.7 of 2014. The availment of CENVAT credit was also considered while issuing that judgment. This is clear from paragraph No.3 of that judgment and it was ....