Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vinod Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
The appeal is admitted on substantial question of law? "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for waiver filed by the appellant when there was serious dispute regarding classification and the appellant according to their case, had been making the payment of duty as per approved classification."
The duty which has been levied on the appellant relates to the period 2004-05 during which as per the appellant, duty has been paid. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has been pleased to hold this view in its earlier judgment reported in 2002 (50) RLT 767 (CEGAT-Del), CCI Chandigarh-I vs. Dabur India Ltd. He submits that the said judgment was dealing with Hajmola Candy and has no application to the present case where the appellant has been manufacturing Hajmola Candy. He submits that the Tribunal committed error in rejecting the application for waiver.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the appellant has made prima facie, case for an interim relief. The appellant to deposit 50% of the amount so demanded within a period of four weeks. Rest of the amount shall be waived. If 50% of the amount is so deposited within the stipulated period as referred above, the Tribunal may proceed to hear the appeal, on merits.
(Prakash Krishna,J) (Ashok Bhushan,J) Order Date :- 9.4.2012 MK/