M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs Cce & St, Bhopal
- CitationAppeal No. 54261 of 2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to final disposal of the appeal where the parties consent to that course, and it is the appellant's having deposited the amount directed under the pre-deposit order that enables the matter to be disposed of on that footing. Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction without examining the merits, and the appellant has since complied with that direction, the dismissal order cannot stand on the merits-unexamined footing, and the appropriate course is to set it aside and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Excise Stay Application No. 54913 of 2014 in Appeal No. 54261 of 2014
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. BPL/EXCUS/000/APP/ 016/14-15 dated 30/04/2014 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal.]
For Approval and signature :
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., 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 would 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 :
Department Authorities?
M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Appellant
Versus
CCE & ST, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance
Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Final Order No. 51888/2015 Dated : 08/06/2015
Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
Heard both the sides. Though, today the matter is listed for hearing of stay application, after hearing the matter for sometime the Bench was of the view that the matter which would be for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and with the consent of both the sides, the matter was heard for final disposal.
2. Both the sides agree that in this case the Commissioner (Appeals) by an interim order passed under Section 35F had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 4 crores and on the appellants failure to deposit the amount dismissed the appeal without going into the merits and against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed alongwith stay application.
3. Both the sides agree that the appellant had challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)s order of pre-deposit before Honble High Court and subsequently before the Honble Supreme Court and Honble Supreme Court had granted further time of eight weeks and that the appellant have deposited the directed amount within the period prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court. Since, the amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his stay order has now been deposited and since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. The appeal as well as stay application stand disposed of, as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member (Technical)
(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Judicial)
PK
??
??
??
??
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