^ €) ^HGLS IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P.1Taxt N6. &5\-e' /2010 Petitioner : Kifs Kay Pan Sungandh, Through - Its Director Ram Gopal Agnihotri S/o late Shri ; D.R.Agnihotri, Aged about 48 years, R/o Govind Nagar, Sirgitti Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) y. !&•••" Eli:^lw •i^:i: Versus Respondents : 1.' Customs,Exeise Ss ;Service Tax . Appellate Tribunal, West Bloek No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi- 110066 2.—Commissioner of Customs and Centa-al Excise, Central Excise ' Building, ^'Fikrapara, Dhamtari Road,RaipUr-492 001 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ^^•^y ^s^ >..:\^v t'.i'l.O..''' ••ws^'^ ..••"' . ^ n '^ 13^ slf' 1 HIGH£OURT_OFCHJHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETniONJT) N0.6510 OF2010 PETITIONER M/s Kay Pan Sungandh RESPONDENTS Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 2nd day ofAugust, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits ;that the imposition of 50% deposit i.e. Rs.75.00 lacs out of Rs. 1.5 crores along with interest thereon is disproportionate and it causes undue hardship. Learned counsel further submits that this amounts to double taxation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is not a pre-deposit, the Tribunal has considered all the aspects and granted stay, subject to deposit of 50% of the principle amount, not the interest. From any standard, it cannot be said that it is undue hardship. 1 have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter while directing the petitioner to make deposit an amount of Rs.75.00 lacs within a period of four weeks. In view of foregoing, 1 do not find any infirmity or undue hardship, as pleaded by the petitioner. Thus the petition is dismissed. However, on the request of'learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Tribunal may consider to dispose of the pending appeal, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge