1998 (8) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise, Meerut issued show cause notice on the petitioner as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 80,72,573.45 be not recovered from them and as to why they be not penalized for contravening the various provisions of the Excise Act and Rules. Subsequently, on 11-3-1998, Central Excise Meerut adjudicated the case vide order dated 11-3-1998 and confirmed the demand duty. Being aggrieved by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Tribunal. The Tribunal however directed the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 35F of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that once appeal has been disposed of by quashing the order passed by the Commissioner, hence there remained no tax or penalty payable by the petitioner nor there was any appeal pending before the Tribunal. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat view of the matter, the direction for payment of pre-deposit was totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 35F. In this connection I refer to two decisions one reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 29 (All.) - M/s. K.S. Steel Works v. Union of India and another reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) - M/s. Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India. In the Allahabad decision, this Court was please....