9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two stay applications and the appeals have been filed by the appellant with respect to a common OIA No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-012 & 013-14-15, dt.21.4.2014 under which the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered. 2. Shri K.I. Vyas , ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue involved in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied upon the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of Allianz Steel Ltd Vs CCE Indore [2012 (286) ELT 633 (Tri-Del)] and argued that under identical situation for default under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 pre-deposit was waived. 3. Shri Jitendra Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that even if the duty liability was discharged by the appellant by making cash payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 42 ,02,524 /- towards payment required to be made in cash. First appellate authority should have taken these aspects into account while ordering pre-deposit. A deposit of Rs. 58 lakhs ordered by the first appellate authority is, therefore, excessive. In the interest of justice, appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with respect to these two appeals wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
