2015 (8) TMI 1303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quent Misc. Order No. 26400, dated 09.07.2013, C.E.A.No. 106 of 2015 is directed against the Final Order No. 21485 of 2014, dated 21.08.2014 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone, Bangalore (for brevity "CESTAT"). Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 11,70,317/- towards the duty liability as proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 04.03.2011, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority, and the Commissioner (Appeals), by Order-in- Appeal No.40/2012(G) CE, dated 12.09.2012, upheld the Original Order of the Joint Commissioner. Challenging the order of the appellate authority, the appellant preferred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferred C.E.A.No. 106 of 2015 before this Court. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that in spite of the best efforts, the appellant could not make pre-deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs because of severe financial crunch. It is also submitted that against Rs. 11,70,317/-, the levy of an unreasonable pre-deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs defeats the very purpose of the appellant filing the appeal seeking to waive excise duty. He further submits that the condition of pre-deposit against the tax demand of Rs. 11,70,317/- is onerous, and the financial hardship that would be caused in the process of running industrial concern is not considered by the Tribunal, as such, both the Central Excise Appeals deserve to be allow....