2012 (7) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Jetly i/b J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER P.C. : Whether the CESTAT while allowing the appeals and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication was justified in directing the appellants to deposit a part of the duty confirmed by the Orders-in-Original, is the question raised in these two appeals. 2. The appeals are admitted on the above question and taken up for hearing by consent o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xtent the credit was disallowed with interest and penalty. On appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order directed the appellants to deposit part of the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellants have filed the above two appeals. 5. The reasons given by the Tribunal for directing pre-deposit are mutually contradictory. In paragraph 12 of it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e set aside by the very same order. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal directing the appellants to deposit part of the demand confirmed is quashed and set aside and the adjudicating authority is directed to hear and pass fresh adjudication order on merits without insisting any pre-deposit. 7. Both the appeals are allowed in the above terms, with n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X