M/S. Mahaveer Transport vs C.C.E. Raipur

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 207(ST)/RPR-I/2013 dated 16.12.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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 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. Mahaveer Transport .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Raipur .Respondent

Appearance:

None present for the Appellant

Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 25.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51781/2015-ST(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) that the appellant has not followed rule 5 of the Central Excise Appeals Rules 2001. Therefore, appeal was dismissed.

2. On perusal of the impugned order we find that appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre deposit, appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the Ld. AR.

3. The appellant has challenged the adjudication order before the ld. Commissioner (A) on the following grounds:

4. Instead of deciding the said issue the Ld. Commissioner (A) held that appellant has not followed the procedure laid down under Rule 5 of Central Excise Appeal Rules 2001. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to raise new grounds before him for deciding the appeal.

5. We have examined the grounds raised by the appellant in appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner (A) are legal in nature and same can be raised at any point of time. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (A) is required to answer the issue raised by the appellant on merits which Ld. Commissioner has failed to do so. In these circumstances, we do not find any merits with the impugned order. Same is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (A) to decide the issues raised by the appellant in their appeal on merits.

6. With these terms, appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed off in the same terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(R.K. Singh) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

ST/53085/2014-ST(DB)