M/S.Maurya Processors, Amritsar vs Cce, Jalandhar
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/56634/2013 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A Commissioner (Appeals) may not dismiss an appeal under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 solely for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement of Section 35F without examining the merits of the case; where the impugned order has done so, it is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for a reasoned and speaking order on the merits, with no pre-deposit insisted upon for hearing the appeal and with the appellant afforded a personal hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.393/CE/Appeal/Jal/2003 dated 22.07.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Cen. Ex. (Appeals), Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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.Maurya Processors, Amritsar Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jalandhar Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Ms. Ranjana Jha, JCDR
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 13.08.2015
Final ORDER NO. 53978/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jalandhar, wherein for non-compliance of the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty amount in terms of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
2. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides.
3. I find that the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty amount as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the merits of the case has not been discussed in the impugned order, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a reasoned and speaking order. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing the order in terms of section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is made clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) will not insist for any pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given opportunity of personal hearing before disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 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