Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur
- CitationAPPEAL No. E/896/05-Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has dismissed an appeal solely for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without deciding the appeal on merits, the dismissal is set aside and the matter is remanded for decision on merits, the pre-deposit requirement having been waived by the Tribunal's stay order and not to be insisted upon on remand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/66/NGP-I/2005 dated 24.2.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 5.3.2015 Date of Decision: 5.3.2015
ORDER NO
Per: P.K. Jain
In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Tribunal vide stay order No. S/397/2006/WZB/C-II/EB dated 8.3.2006 reported in 2006 (200) ELT 114 (Tri.-Mumbai), waived the requirement of pre-deposit.
2. Heard both sides.
3. We note that in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits but has dismissed the appeal due to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
4. In view of the above position, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits without insisting for any pre-deposit of duty. It is also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) will decide the matter on merits without getting influenced by the observation made by this Tribunal in para 4 of the stay order dated 8.3.2006 as the matter is very old and in past, it is seen that the appellants had not been responding to the personal hearings, summons and notices. The appellant is directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.4.2015 along with copy of their appeal and other submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) will thereafter fix a date for hearing and decide the matter on merits.
5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)
(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)
tvu 1 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