2008 (10) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 25,89,250/- but reduced the penalty from Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- by order dated 28-7-2004. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Along with the appeal he filed a petition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for stay. However, the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount with the adjudicating authority as required under Section 35F of the Act. He prayed for dispensing with the said payment. The appellate tribunal by order dated 29-3-2006 in No. E/PD/701/2004 in E/Appeal No. 1338/2004 directed the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the duty amount within four weeks from the date of the order. The tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hardship to him. 6. In Benara Valves Limited case cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the similar situation regarding undue hardship to the assessee. In paragraphs 11 to 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "11. Two significant expressions used in the provisions are "undue hardship to such person" and "safeguard the interests of revenue". Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interest of Revenue have to be kept in view. 12. As noted above there are two important expressions in Section 35(F). One is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the applicant fo....