2006 (8) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as penalty. 3.Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal and along with the appeal an application for waiver of pre deposit of duty and penalty was filed. This application was taken up for consideration on 1st June, 2005 and the Tribunal noted in paragraph 3 of its order that the only contention of the Petitioner was that the demand was time barred. In paragraph 5 of the order, it is noted that the Petitioner did not dispute the fact that the advance licenses submitted for import of duty were bogus and the only contention urged was that the demand was time barred. On a consideration of the issues raised before the Tribunal, it was of the view that it would be appropriate if the Petitioner was required to depos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dification of the order requiring it to furnish a bank guarantee for 50% of the disputed amount in this case the issue is covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. 7.Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal bringing all these facts to its notice and contending that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. 8.The Tribunal considered the facts of the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench and came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had found at the final stage of the hearing of the case that there was no evidence to come to the conclusion that there was any willful mis-statement or suppression of fact therein with intent to evade paym....