Arisudana Industries Ltd vs Cce & St, Ludhiana
- Case No.Appeal No.E/50368/2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot entertain an appeal conditional upon a pre-deposit that the appellant has not been shown to be required to make, and where the appellant has deposited an amount that the Tribunal considers sufficient for entertaining the appeal, the matter is to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit, after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Stay Order No.12/CE/Stay/Ldh/14 dt.1.10.14 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Chandigarh-I)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 29.04.2015
For Approval &signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Arisudana Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Ludhiana Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K.Mishra, AR
Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.51482/2015
PER: ASHOK JINDAL
Considering the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits and directed the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs.7 lakhs for entertaining the appeal of the appellant, against that order, the appellant is before me.
2. Considering that the appellant have deposited Rs.70,000/- for entertaining the appeal before this Tribunal, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (appeals) to decide issue on merits without insisting on pre-deposit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
3. The appeal is disposed in the above terms.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
(ASHOK JINDAL)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
mk
3 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free