M/S. Bhawani Metal Agencies vs Commr. Of Central Excise-Ranchi

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 62/RAN/2012 dated-04/09/2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)

For approval and Signature of:

DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE 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?

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. Bhawani Metal Agencies

APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise-Ranchi RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

Sri R.K. Gadoria, C.A. FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S. K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 29/07/2015

ORDER NO. :FO/A/75414/2015

PER DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before this Forum.

2. Ld. C.A. for the applicant submits that due to the accident of the son-in-law of the consultant, appointed to draft the appeal, the appeal could not be prepared in time.In support of the said facts, the Ld. C.A. placed doctors certificate dated 31/01/2013.

3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has no objection.

4. In view of the reasons explained in the application supported by medical certificate, the delay caused deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the same is condoned. At this stage, the Ld. C.A. requested to take up the stay application itself for disposal to which the Ld. A.R. has no objection.

5. The stay application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.3.01 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

6. The Ld. C.A. submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) directed pre-deposit of the entire amount of service tax and on default, the appeal was dismissed under Section 35F of CEA, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax matters. He submits that subsequently, they have deposited the entire amount on 23rd January, 2013 and 26/06/2014.In support he has placed relevant e-receipt of such payments.He prays that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeal) for decision on merit.

7. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue does not dispute the facts.

8. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.

9. We find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of default in making pre-deposit. We find that the appellant had subsequently deposited the entire amount of service tax, which in our opinion is sufficient to hear their appeal. Consequently, we remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) for deciding the issue afresh, on merit, without insisting for any pre-deposit. Needless to mention that principles of natural justice be observed. All issues are open.Appeal is allowed by way of remand. S.P. disposed off. M.A. (COD) allowed.

(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 31/07/2015 Sd/- 30/07/2015 (DR.I.P.LAL) (DR. D.M. MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

k.b/-

Excise Appeal No. ST/75021/13

3