`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.22725 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.12.2010 M/s Munjal Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.N. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.10.2010, declining complete waiver of duty demand, interest and penalty and instead granting waiver beyond `50 lacs on the said amount being deposited within eight weeks from the date of order. 2. On the allegation of evasion of duty by clandestine removal and under-valuation, a search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and its directors. On the basis of material found after due adjudication, demand of duty of more than `50 lacs was raised in addition to the amount of penalty and statutory interest. Against the order in original dated 27.2.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal alongwith an application for stay. C.W.P. No.22725 of 2010 3. The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie case for complete waiver and though financial hardship was pleaded, on account of closure of factory, taking into account the interest of the revenue, case for complete waiver was not made out. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE 2006(204) ELT 513. and Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2008(221) ELT 7. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of `50 lacs. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had pleaded financial hardship though the same was not substantiated by filing relevant documents and in these circumstances, the Tribunal erred in declining complete waiver. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The petitioner failed to establish prima facie case. The demand of duty was raised on account of clandestine removal of goods, after due adjudication. The petitioner failed to establish financial hardship inspite of opportunity being available to it. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has required deposit of amount which was less than the duty found due and granted waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amount, penalty and interest. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction calling for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 20, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ashwani JUDGE 2