For Approval And Signature vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service ...
- CitationAppeal No. 29/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appellate) ought not to have dismissed the appeal for failure to deposit 50% of the duty demanded where, in similar cases, the Tribunal has granted complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery; consistency in the grant of such relief requires that the same course be followed in the present case, and the matter must accordingly be remanded for hearing 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. 29/2014 dated 07/02/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam]
For approval and signature: HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. 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 Oswal Smelters Pvt. Ltd. No. 6, 2nd Main Road, Ramachandrapuram Bangalore 560 021 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs And Service Tax, Visakhapatnam Central Excise Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Mirnalani, Advocate Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan World Trade Centre No.404-406, 4th Floor, South Wing, Brigade Gateway Campus No.26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram West Bangalore - 560 055 Karnataka For the Appellant
Mr. S. Ila, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 01/01/2015 Date of Decision: 01/01/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20014 / 2015
Per: B.S.V. MURTHY
The issue involved is whether the Manganese Ore (according to the appellant) imported is actually Concentrate as claimed by the department or not. The appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that appellant failed to deposit 50% of the duty demand for hearing the appeal. In similar cases in the past, this Tribunal has granted complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery. Therefore it would be appropriate that in this case also it would be heard by Commissioner (Appeals) without insisting on any pre-deposit. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to decide an appeal on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. Stay application also gets disposed of.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
iss
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