9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER The delay of 108 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 16-4-2012 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of Rs. 1.52 crores. The said show cause notice was duly replied by the appellants. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 26-7-2011 (Annexure A-4) confirmed the said demand of duty and also imposed penalty of an equal amount on the appellants. Personal penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed on appellant No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed appeals along with stay application (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit an amount of Rs. 75 lacs and appellant No. 2 to deposit Rs. 5 lacs as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeals within eight weeks was unjustified and excessive. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the amount as directed was reasonable and justified. 6. The primary dispute that arises for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
