2005 (3) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,00,927/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner challenged the same before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 5th October, 2004 (Annexure-D) dismissed the appeal since the petitioner had failed to deposit amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was directed to be deposited vide order dated 19th May, 2003. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, disposed of the stay application as well as the appeal vide impugned order dated 27th November, 2004 directing the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks, and upon such deposit being made the balance amount of pre-deposit of duty and penalty stood waived. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demic (ii) in the alternative, in light of the subsequent decision of the Tribunal on merits all adverse orders with special reference to Order-in-Original dated 30th April, 2001/8th May, 2001 (Annexure-A) was required to be set aside and the respondent was prevented from enforcing recovery of any demand in pursuance of the said order. In support of the aforesaid proposition Mr. Dave highlighted the provisions of Section 35F of the Act to submit that the Tribunal could not have imposed any condition for making a pre-deposit before the Appeal should be heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits and in these circumstances also, the impugned order dated 27th September, 2004 was bad in law. 5.As can be seen from the facts on record, which a....