2011 (2) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) directed the appellants to make pre-deposit, without looking into the merits for such demands - as the appellants have submitted before the lower appellate authority that they have taken credit on the basis of original invoice, which was not considered by the lower appellate authorities, the order to make a pre-deposit of 50% of duty and 50% of penalty is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the demand against the appellants. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that they have taken credit appropriately on the basis of original copy of the invoice, which they produced before the authorities, the same was not considered by them. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to make pre-deposit of 50% of duty and 50% of penalty, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of original invoice, which was not considered by the lower appellate authorities, the order to make a pre-deposit of 50% of duty and 50% of penalty is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and remand back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits without insisting the appellant to pre-deposit. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X