M/S Jaywin Remedies Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No. : E/703/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition without first examining the merits of the appeal; where the appeal was dismissed on that procedural ground alone, the dismissal is set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision on merits, without insisting on any pre-deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-16/2008-AHD-III-CE/KCG/COMMR-A- dtd 31.3.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-III ]
M/s Jaywin Remedies Pvt Ltd - Appellant(s)
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise- AHMEDABAD-III - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, 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. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 30/9/2015
ORDER No. A/11385 / 2015 dtd 30/9/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on non-compliance of the stay order. The Learned Advocate submits that on the identical issue the Tribunal passed several orders in their favour. He also referred the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Chemonix India Pvt Ltd vs, CC, Ahmedabad by Order No A/2181/WZB/ AHD/ 2008, S/1105/WZB/AHD/2008 dtd 30th Sept. 2008. We find that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the merit. So, it is appropriate the matter should be remanded to the commissioner (Appeals)to decide afresh on merit. At this stage, the Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that the appeal was for the year 2008 and the Revenue interest should be taken into care.
2. In view of the above discussion , we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) decide afresh after considering the submission of the appeal on merit without insisting any pre-deposit. As per the submission of the Learned Representative of the Revenue, we request the Commissioner (appeals) to decide this matter as expeditiously as possible. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
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