TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order dated 27.12.11 enhanced the pre-deposit requirement to Rs.10 lacs within six weeks time - Advocate who was representing the appellants before the Tribunal had expired on 28.7.2011 - The Tribunal's order insisting on certain pre-deposit was passed without any representation from the appellant - Held that:- The appellants deserve a chance to argue their appeals on merits. Tribunal, ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom them and further why penalties should not be imposed against them. The Adjudicating Authority passed the order in original on 23rd March 2010. He ordered recovery of Rs.11,43,546/- with interest and matching penalties. All the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who initially passed an order on 20th August 2010 and insisted on pre-deposit of 50 per cent of the above amount by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot comply with such requirements, on 1.3.12, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dismissing all the three appeals. The appellants have therefore filed these appeals challenging not only the order of the Tribunal but also the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. 5. For the purpose of these appeals, following substantial question of law is framed : Whether, in the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the appellants. Even such order dated 27.12.11 granting six weeks time to the appellants to satisfy such condition, was not conveyed to the appellants. The appeals, therefore, came to be dismissed without any participation from the appellants. 7. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellants deserve a chance to argue their appeals on merits. The Tribunal, in our opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 2012. 9. Under the circumstances, the question is decided in favour of the appellants. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Further, the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is also quashed. The appeals of the appellants are placed back before the Commissioner (Appeals), for consideration on merits, if they satisfy the requirement of depositing the amount me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
