2019 (10) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent.  Sudhanshu Dhulia,   Petitioner no. 1 before this Court is a private limited company and petitioner no. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company. Petitioners claim certain excise benefits which a new unit is liable to get in form of excise and income tax exemptions given in Uttarakhand for a certain period of time, to new units. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioners have to deposit a statutory amount which is 7.5% of the total disputed demand, before the appellate authority. The petitioners have not deposited this statutory deposit, which is mandatory demand as per Section 35F of the aforesaid Act. 4. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as under:- "Section 35F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der appealed against; (iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against:  Provided that the amount required to be deposite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of the petitioners. There are various other grounds for challenge such as documentary evidences have not been taken into consideration, etc. 6. All the same, this writ petition is totally misconceived for various reasons. Firstly, there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioners under Section 35B read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and secondly, the petitioners ha....