M/S. Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/10767/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The first appellate authority, having dismissed the appeal solely for non-compliance with the requirement to pre-deposit the entire duty confirmed without deciding the matter on merits, must be set aside, and the Tribunal may do so where the pre-deposit already made, here Rs. 25,000/- as directed at the stay stage, is sufficient to permit the merits to be heard and decided, the appellate authority being directed to decide the issue on merits without insisting on further pre-deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-CCEA-SRT-II-SSP-195-U-S-35A dated 31.12.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Surat)
M/s. Cadila Healthcare Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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
CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 14.07.2015
ORDER No. A/11001/2015 Dated 14.07.2015
Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
When this appeal was called out for hearing, Shri H.D. Dave, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty confirmed. That at the time of granting stay, this Bench directed payment of Rs. 25,000/- as pre-deposit.
2. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that the first appellate authority has not decided the issue on merits and has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance. The pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellant is sufficient for hearing and deciding the issue on merits. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore, order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the first appellate authority is set-aside and the case is remanded to him for deciding the issue on merits without insisting on further pre-deposit.
3. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority. (Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL
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