Vidyut Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

1. this is an application for dispensing with a deposit of rs. 2,44,737/- in terms of the proviso to section 35(f) of the central excises and salt act, 1944 and stay of the recovery thereof.2. prim a facie, a perusal of the adjudication order itself does not reveal that any specified amount of money was demanded in terms thereof, from either the applicant or others who were parties to the adjudication towards duty, notwithstanding that the amount of duty alleged to have been evaded was quantified in para 18 thereof. the penalty that was levied on the applicant was, however, admittedly, recovered by enforcing a bank guarantee furnished by the applicant.3. in the result, it does not appear that "the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded" from "the person desirous of appealing against the decision". [section 35(f) of the central excises and salt act, 1944] 4. accordingly, since no duty had been demanded by the order under appeal, there is no question of making a deposit of any duty demanded or dispensing with such deposit.5. this being the case, we, in exercise of the ancillary or incidental powers vested in us [i.t.o. v. mohd. kunhi (1969) 71 itr 815] hereby order and direct that no steps should be taken to effect recovery of any amount towards duty from the applicant under the order in question till the hearing and disposal of the appeal preferred by the applicant.