- (1.) We have heard Sri Vijay Prakash, for the appellant, Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi represents for the Central Excise Department and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order on the stay application No. E/STAY/919-920/2011-EX (DB)) dated 14-12-2011 in the pending Central Excise Appeal No. 762- 763/2011 in the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit Rs. 40,00,000/- as precondition for adjudication of the appeal against the demand of Rs. 79,29,442/-, plus interest and penalty order.
(2.) The CESAT considered the submissions of the appellant, that the Adjudicating Authority did not give adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and that the bank documents were not scrutinised, in arriving at a finding that Rs. 6 Crores claimed as input credit, were cleared to the accounts of the suppliers.
(3.) Sri Vijay Prakash, counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority were not supplied to the petitioner, and further that the cheques were actually cleared from the accounts of the petitioner but were not debited to the account of the suppliers, of which the blame could not be put upon the petitioner. He has relied upon a decision in Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India, 1998 103 ELT 5, in which it was held that where the demand for duty in violation of principles of natural justice, by an ex parte order, the direction for pre-deposit is not sustainable.;