M/S.Maa Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Ltd vs Cce-Ranchi
- CitationAppeal No.EA-721/12
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) may not dismiss an appeal under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction where the appellant has, pursuant to an earlier direction of the Tribunal, deposited the amount the Tribunal found sufficient, and the appeal must instead be decided on merit. Where the appellate authority has disposed of an appeal on the ground of non-compliance with a pre-deposit requirement without deciding the merits, and the Tribunal finds the amount already deposited in compliance with its own direction to be sufficient, the proper course is to remand the appeal for decision on merit without insisting on any further pre-deposit, keeping all issues open and granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 65/RAN/2012 dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, 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 should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s.Maa Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE-Ranchi
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri Abhisek Tibrewal, C.A. for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial)
Date of Hearing/Decision :- 26.8.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 26.8.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75454/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The ld.CA for the appellant submits that the ld.Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed their appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit, under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 11.3.2013 they have deposited Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and prays that the matter may be remanded to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for fresh decision on merit.
3. Ld.A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepts that since the issue has not been decided on merit, he has no objection in remanding the case to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for decision on merit.
4. I find that the ld.Commissioner has dismissed their appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal the appellant has already deposited Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only), which in my opinion, is sufficient to hear their appeal. Consequently the appeal is remanded to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for decision on merit without insisting any further pre-deposit. It is made clear that all issues are kept open. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/
(D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
3 Appeal No.EA-721/12
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