P.K.Jain, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M. Manglik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioner availed Modvat credit in view of the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The said credit was however disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise) after serving notice upon the petitioner and hearing him. An appeal was preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner in which an application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of one-third of the disputed amount at the time of filing of the appeal was moved. The appellate authority allowed waiver of condition of pre-deposit of one-third of the disputed amount of the extent of 50% only.
(3.) It is this order which is being challenged in this writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a number of documents were produced before the appellate authority showing hardship of the petitioner. The appellate authority did not consider financial condition of the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to the documents filed with this writ petition viz., copy of its bank account, copy of the notice served by the Financial Corporation as contained in Annexure 7 and the statement relating to decline in business and sale of the petitioner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed 50% waiver by observing that considering the financial difficulty the appellants are directed to deposit 50% of the amount and Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty imposed. Learned Standing Counsel submits that this is enough to show that the documents were considered.;