M/S. Atm Forgings vs C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/52987/2014-E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Tribunal has directed pre-deposit of duty as a condition for pursuing an appeal, and the appellant has in fact made that deposit before the impugned order was passed but the deposit was not brought to the notice of the first appellate authority, the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance cannot stand; the appeal must be decided on merits, and the matter is to be remanded to the first appellate authority for a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-07-14-15 dated: 20.01.2014 passed by CCE Chandigarh-I]
Excise Stay Application No. E/Stay/53363/2014
Excise Appeal No. E/52988/2014-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-08-14-15 dated: 22.01.2014 passed by CCE Chandigarh-I]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble 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/s. ATM Forgings ...Appellant
M/s. Victor Drop Forgings Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-I Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Naveen Bindal (Advocate) for the Respondent
Mr. M. S. Negi, DR for the Appellants
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing.19.06.2015
Final Order No. 52116-52117/2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
1. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. This Tribunal vide Final Order dated 18.06.2012, directed the appellant M/s ATM Forgings Appeal No. (E-997/2012) and M/s Victor Drop Forgings Appeal No. (E-1000/2012) to make deposit of duty amount within 6 weeks and to report compliance before the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter on merits. With regard to M/s Victor Forgings, the duty amount was deposited within time as per the direction of the Tribunal. However, in case of ATM Forgings, there was a delay of 4 months in pre-depositing the amount. Though, the amount in both the cases were pre-deposited by the appellant prior to passing of the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals), but due to non-submission of compliance report at the time of hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals filed by the above appellants.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides.
3. I find that the amount directed by the Tribunal was deposited by the appellant before passing of the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since such deposit particulars were not brought to the notice of the first Appellate Authority, the appeal was dismissed. Considering the fact that the amount had already been deposited, I am of the view that the appeal should be decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing reasoned and speaking order preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The stay applications are disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 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