M.K. Enterprises vs Cce & St, Chandigarh-I

[Arising out of Stay order No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-01/Stay/ST/CHD I/2015-16 dated 05.05.2015/ 12.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh-I ]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M.K. Enterprises Appellant

Vs.

CCE & ST, Chandigarh-I  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri Devender Singh, DR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.07.2015

Final ORDER NO. _______________

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the stay order dated 05.05.2015/12.05.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, wherein the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.5.00 Lakhs under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that out of the amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has already deposited Rs.3,14,000/-. He further submits that since the merits of the case has not been discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter may be remanded back for disposal of the appeal in terms of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Per contra, the ld. JCDR Shri Devender Singh appearing for the respondent submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a very reasonable view in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.5.00 Lakhs. Thus, according to him, the stay order being reasonable and the appellant has not complied with the said order in its entirety, there is no reason to entertain the Misc. application.

4. Heard the ld. Counsels for both sides and perused the records.

5. I find that out of the amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs directed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide impugned order dated 12.05.2015, the appellant has already deposited Rs.3,14,000/-. Considering the fact that the substantial amount has been deposited, I am of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) should take up the appeal on merits and should dispose of the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to dispose of the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The Misc. Application is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 3