M/S.Mayank Containers Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/52997/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has dismissed an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit requirement without considering the merits, and the pre-deposit amount has in fact been paid with intimation to that authority, the dismissal cannot stand; the matter is to be remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits on the available record, by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of 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.174/CE/DLH/2013 dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Delhi-1]
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.Mayank Containers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Ravinder Singh, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri Devender Singh, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 24.07.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53280/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18th November, 2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I, wherein for non-compliance of requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal has been dismissed.
2. The ld. Consultant, Shri Ravinder Singh appearing for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide interim order dated 30th April, 2013 has directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. The appellant filed the application dated 15th May, 2013 requesting for re-consideration of the interim order. Without considering the request of the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of the stay order. The ld. Consultant further submits that the amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs has already been deposited by the appellant with due intimation to the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Considering the facts that the amount directed for pre-deposit has already been deposited by the appellant and that the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter should go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits based on the available records.
4. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant.
5. The appeal and stay application are disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 2 E/S/53379/ 2014 in
E/52997/2014 EX. [SM]
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