9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. - CEA No. 106 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 24-3-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate. For the 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, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 30.7.2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.4.2003. Thereafter, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.2.2004 upheld the order 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 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aive off the requirement of pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty, interest and penalty. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application for modification of order dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure A-4) which was dismissed vide order 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 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable and justified. 5. The primary dispute that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the quantum of pre-deposit to be made by the appellants as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
