H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON’BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR JJ Writ Petition (T) No. 1866 of 2011 Present : ,, Shri BP Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. t $hri Bhishma Kinger, counsel for the respondent. oRDER (1 1‘“ April, 201 1) Per Dhirendra Mishra .I By this petition. the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 13.1.2011, whereby the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, while considering the stay application No.930/1O in Central Excise Appeal against the order dated 29,1 .2010 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur, has declined to grant full waiver of duty demanded and ordered the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty demanded within 10 weeks. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has correctly and legally taken credit of Rs.24,55,107/- on structural steel, which was used as part/component to the plant and machinery as per Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue has already been settled by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and in these circumstances, the learned Tribunal w; “~ ‘\,‘ ought to have granted full waiVer of duty demanded. Petitioner M/s Ba!ajee Structural (I) Pvt Ltd. Tatibandh Raipur, a company registered under the Indian‘ Companies Act, 1956 Through its Director Shri Vishnu Agrawal, son of Late Bhagwan Das Agrawal, aged 39 years, Tatibandh, Raipur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur(CG) 2. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appeiiate Tribunal, New Delhi. @235 3. On the other hand, Shri Kinger, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the Tribunal exercised the statutory discretion availabie with it and waived 50% of the duty demanded by the Commissioner‘ The petitioner has not demonstrated that he is iikeiy to suffer hardship, which may result in irreparable injury to him, if the entire duty demanded is not waived. ln these circumstances. no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order, which is interim in nature. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. indisputably, the amount of duty demanded or penalty levied is to be deposited with the adjudicating authority during pendency of appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) o‘r the Tribunal may dispense with such deposit, subject to such condition as it is deemed ht so as to safeguard the interest of the revenue, where the Tribunal is of the opinion that deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has dispensed with 50% of the duty demanded. No exceptional hardship, which is likely to be caused to the petitioner, has been brought to the notice of this Court, which has been ignored by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this writ petition and interfere with the impugned order, which is, admittedly, interim in nature, and has been passed in exercise of discretion vested with the Tribunal. There is no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed at the f‘e’ admission stage itself. Sd/- R .L. JHANWAR Sdl~ Dhirendra Mishra Judge Judge