Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 26 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(144)ELT384(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Gowri Shankar, Member (T) - The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 8,11,950/- and penalty of Rs. 1000/-.
2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The stay application filed by the applicant contains no ground whatsoever on merits. All that it says is that the impugned order does not recognize the facts in the right perspective, the applicant has a prima facie case and there are number of decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the applicant.
3. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 28A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules specifically requires the application of waiver of deposit to indicate reasons in brief in seeking stay. The reason that is furnished in the stay application is entirely insufficient for me to come t(c) a conclusion that any of the amount in question is not required to be deposited. The stay application does not even refer to the appeal except to say that it has been filed. I have no option to conclude that the applicant is not able to specify any grounds other than the vague and general ones already mentioned in support of its application for waiver of deposit. It would then follow that the entire amount has to be deposited. Financial hardship is not pleaded.
4. The application is accordingly dismissed. If the amount in question is not deposited within a month from the receipt of this order and compliance shown on 24-5-2002, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.