9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate. ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 19.3.2013 (Annexure A-8) passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Still dissatisfied, the revenue filed an appeal before this Court. This Court vide order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure A-1) allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and confronting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure A-5) by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the appellants failed to deposit the aforesaid amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure A-6). Feeling aggrieved, the appellants took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 19.3.2013 (Annexure A-8) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- be deposited as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) which would meet the ends of justice. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Since the appeal was also dismissed for non-compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
