9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA SRP-200-VAPI-2012-13 dated 09.01.2013. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that amount confirmed in this appeal is Rs. 2,21,995/- and interest of Rs. 76,554/-. It was submitted that against the above confirmed demand, appellant has paid the entire amount along with interest. Learned advocate further bring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Govind Jha, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. As the issue revolving around a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay application, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The judgment of this bench in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs. CCE, Vapi (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the duty amount, he submits that in their own case, a stay order was passed by this Tribunal and the entire duty involved in that case was asked to be pre-deposited by them. 4. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that pre-deposit is required to be made by the appellant in view of the earlier stay order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice. In the present proceedings also only one OIO has been issued by the adjudicating authority against four show cause notices and the OIO has mentioned four numbers i.e. OIO No. 41 to 44. In view of the above observations, it is clear that more than one show cause notices decided under a single OIO filing of one appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.01.2013, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
