2011 (4) TMI 1195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndeparkar: Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the Joint CDR for the respondent. 2. These appeals arise from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby appeals were dismissed solely on the ground that the appellants did not comply with the order regarding the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. The appellants had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iod both the appeals came to be dismissed by the impugned order.  4. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal while disposing the stay application, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the duty amount. Undisputedly, the said amount has been deposited by the appellants. 5. It appears that the controversy which is sought to be raised by the appellants in the m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eedless to say that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all above observations are merely for the purpose of deciding the appeal in relation to the point pertaining to pre-deposit. 7. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the provisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X