2004 (5) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri B.R. Jagadish, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - For the purpose of hearing the appeal, the appellant is required to pre-deposit penalty of Rs. 15,20,319/- under Rule 96ZO(1). The appellants were confirmed with duty amount in terms of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 324-325/2003-C.E., dated 11-12-2003. The matter pertaining to imposition of penalty has be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ands. Since the same has not been done, it is not open to them to challenge that, in this appeal. 4. On a careful consideration, we find force in the DR's submission. The aspect pertaining to provisionality of assessment has to be raised in the proceedings where demands were confirmed in Order-in-Appeal Nos. 324-325/2003-C.E., dated 11-12-2003. It is too late in the day to raise this groun....