2011 (9) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mukesh Anand, Advocate with Mr. Shailesh Tiwari and Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, Advocates. A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. Notice. Mr. Anand, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent.   2. Since both the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, we have heard the arguments and proceed to dictate the order.   3. This Appeal is filed against the Order dated 18th March, 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f facts and has directed the Appellant to make a deposit of 60% of the amount demanded as a pre-condition for hearing the Appeal. The cases referred in Paragraph 5 of the impugned Order include M/s A-One Laminators Pvt. Ltd. M/s A-One Laminators Pvt. Ltd. has challenged the said order by filing CEAC No.15/2011 in this Court and that Appeal was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 4th July, 2011.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entitled to credit on duty paid on inputs. In the orders dated 4th July, 2011 passed by this Court in the case of M/s A-One Laminators Pvt. Ltd., the contention of the Appellant, in these circumstances, was noted and dealt with in the following manner: "5. The neat submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the aforesaid process is not to be treated as manufacturing pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the appeals of the appellants should be heard without any condition of pre-deposit. These appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned directions of the Tribunal are set aside."   7. Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has drawn our attention to the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of which argument is raised that the Adjudicating ....