BAGSONS INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice and submits that the petition can be disposed of at this stage.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8-5-2012 of CESTAT directing that pre-depositing the entire duty and interest component.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal as well as the authorities fell into error of law; he emphasised that despite repeated requests the investigation report relied upon by the adjudicating and appellate authority, was not furnished and the Tribunal lost sight of this fact while upholding the adverse finding against the petitioner. The petitioner is a merchant-exporter who had availed benefit of Notification 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.). It was submitted that originally the authorities had required the petitioner to show-cause vis- -vis the CT-1 Forms but it was argued that the ARE Forms relied upon by the authorities in this case were not signed by the petitioner or his representative and that an application for Forensic examination of these documents was sought but denied. It was lastly urged that in any event the petitioner is in constrained financial circumstances and the Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of duty inclusive of interest. Learned counsel emphasised that the burden in this case becomes oppressive.