GHANSHYAM LODHWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is lying from the year 2008 with extension of stay from time to time. When the Bench had earlier heard the stay application on 18 -9 -08, it was of the view that the demand may be barred by limitation for which/waiver of pre -deposit was granted. It was quite probable that due to smallness of the demand involved, the small tax payer was not insisted pre -deposit.

(2.) IN view of the smallness of the demand involved and the matter not being that grave, we propose to dispose of the appeal instead of granting further stay. However, we notice that there was none for the appellant today. Accordingly we proceed to examine the matter in detail because we are passing an order ex parte.

(3.) 1 Heard Revenue extensively.