M/S. Jonas Woodhead & Sons (I) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal20 April 2015

CitationAppeal No.125/2013 (M-IV), dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cent

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

This appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the matter to be decided on the merits, without insisting on pre-deposit, because the Tribunal had already dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement in this very appeal by its earlier Misc. Order dated 28.10.2014; an appeal dismissed by the first appellate authority for default of pre-deposit, where the Tribunal has earlier dispensed with that requirement, is to be restored and decided on merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAIE/41152/2013

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.125/2013 (M-IV), dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service gtax (Appeals), Chennai]

M/s. JONAS WOODHEAD & SONS (I) LTD. APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Shri N. Viswanathan, Adv.

For the Respondent Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of hearing/decision 20-04-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 40496 / 2015

Per D.N. Panda:

This appeal arose out of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal for no pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned counsel says that since Tribunal has decided the issues relating to adjustability of excess duty paid against short payment of duty arose consequent upon final assessment in respect of certain clearances today in a different appeal of appellant, this appeal may be decided following the result o that appeal.

2. It is noticed that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits since he has dismissed the same for default of appellant to comply to the pre-deposit order passed by him. Therefore, this appeal should go back to him to decide the same on the basis of reasoning stated in the order passed today in appeal nos. E/00642/2007, E/00672/2007 and E/41680 to 41682/2014 without insisting pre-deposit since Tribunal has already dispensed requirement of pre-deposit vide Misc. Order No.41893-41896/2014, dated 28.10.2014.

3, In the result, this appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for issuance of the notice to the appellant as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate order following the decision on the issue of adjustability of excess duty paid against short payment of duty ordered today in the above said appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 27-04-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 20.04.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing 21.04.2015 23.04.2015 24.04.2015

Fair Order Typing 27.04.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch 06/05/2015

2 E/41152/2013

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