TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partly in favour of assessee. - CEA No. 105 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, 1944 (in short the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l amount. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 31.3.2004 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 31.12.2003. Thereafter, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal who upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the revenue filed an appeal before this Court. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty confirmed and waive off the requirement of pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty, interest and penalty. However, the requirement of pre-deposit by appellant No.2 was waived off. 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 appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the amount of Rs. 25 lacs was 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 keepi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
