2012 (6) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (Appeals), vide its impugned Orders dated 12.01.10 decided the issue in the Department's favour, whereas in his recent Order dated 04.04.12 he has decided the issue in favour of the Applicant. Therefore, the issue is debatable. Thus, prima facie, the case is in favour of the Applicant. Therefore, the requirement of predeposit is waived and recovery thereof, is stayed during the pendenc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als) for hearing the grievance of the Appellant of its Stay Petition. Vide Order-in-Appeal No.50/KOL-III/2012 dated 04.04.2012, the requirement of predeposit was waived by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal was decided in their (assessee s) favour. The contention is that the impugned Orders dated 12.01.10 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are against them, whereas the Ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that the Commissioner (Appeals), vide its impugned Orders dated 12.01.10 decided the issue in the Department s favour, whereas the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his recent Order No.50/Kol-III/2012 dated 04.04.12 has decided the issue in favour of the Applicant. Therefore, the issue is debatable. Thus, prima facie, the case is in favour of the Applicant. Therefore, the requirement of predep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X