Choice Precitech India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ...
- CitationAppeal No. 83/2012 (H-IV) S. Tax dated 30/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ce
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate authority may not dismiss an appeal merely for non-compliance with a stay order where, on the same issue, the original adjudicating authority in an earlier order has extended the benefit of the relevant notification to the assessee, and the appellate authority has not decided the issue on its merits; in such circumstances the appellate tribunal may dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit and remand the matter to the appellate authority for decision on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 83/2012 (H-IV) S. Tax dated 30/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities? Yes
CHOICE PRECITECH INDIA PVT LTD PLOT NO.216& 217, PADMA NAGAR COLONY, PHASE-II, HMT TOWNSHIP POST, HYDERABAD 500 054 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD 500001, ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 26/03/2015
Date of Decision: 26/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20843 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
On matter being called, neither anybody appeared nor is there any request for adjournment. Accordingly, we have gone through the appeal records and have heard learned DR.
2. It is seen that the Commissioner (A) has dismissed the assessees appeal for non-compliance with his stay order directing the applicant to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed against them. The appellants contention is that on an identical issue, a show-cause notice was issued to them earlier which was adjudicated vide order dated 28.3.2011 holding that the benefit of Notification No.8/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 would be available to them. As the appellants are undertaking various activities on job work basis and are sending the goods to the principal manufacturers who are utilizing the same in the manufacture of their final products and are discharging duty liability on the same, the benefit of Notification No.8/2005 would be available.
3. Inasmuch as in one of the orders, the original adjudicating authority has extended the benefit of said Notification, we deem it fit to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of dues. Further, as the appellate authority has not decided the issue on merits, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to him for decision on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 2
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