1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7038 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7038 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7038 OF 2008 ITD Cementation India Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, i/b. Mr. H.G.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rao, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ DATED: 15th October, 2008. DATED: 15th October, 2008. DATED: 15th October, 2008. P.C P.C P.C. 1. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner along with the appeal, filed an application for waiver. The requirement under the law is that along with the appeal, the tax should be paid in full. The Tribunal considered the application of the petitioner. Although the Tribunal found on facts, prima facie, that there was no case for waiver, even then the Tribunal passed an order waiving the condition of deposit of whole of the 2 liability on deposit of an amount of Rs.1 crore. We are told at the Bar that the total liability is about Rs.5 crores. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The only infirmity that can be attributed to the order of the Tribunal is that having found that there was no case for waiver, the Tribunal should not have allowed waiver on deposit of 20% of the liability. Since that order has not ben challenged by the other side, we do not want to go into that question. 2. As regards the case for waiver which was made out, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is an exclusion clause and services rendered by the petitioner are covered under that exclusion clause. The Tribunal has rightly found that this was the matter which could be gone into at the final adjudication of the appeal. 3. For these reasons, we do not find merit in the Writ Petition. The Petition is dismissed. (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI,J.) NAZKI,J.) NAZKI,J.) 3 (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)