M/S. Prakash Strips Ltd vs C. C.E. Panchkula
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/1882 & 1883/2009-E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely for non-compliance with a pre-deposit order, without any examination of the merits, and the appellant has since complied with the pre-deposit directed, the dismissal cannot stand on that ground alone; the appropriate course is to set aside the impugned order and remand the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned and speaking decision on the merits, after affording the appellant an 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. 93/ANS/PCK/2009 dated 27.03.2009 passed by CCE (Appeals) Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble 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. Prakash Strips Ltd. ...Appellant
Mohinder Kumar Goyal
Vs.
C. C.E. Panchkula Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Aalok Arora, (Advocate) for the Appellant
Mr. R K Mishra, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing. 15.07.2015
Final Order No. 54080-54081 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the subject matter of present dispute.
2. The Ld. Advocate Sh. Aalok Arora appearing for the appellant submits that the without discussing the merits of the case, the appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the sole ground of non-compliance of order for pre-deposit, which is not proper and justified. He further submits that since the amount directed for pre deposit by the Tribunal has already been complied with by the appellant, the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing the appeal on merits.
3. Sh. RK Mishra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent, has not expressed any reservations for remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeals on merits.
4. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, I am of the view that the matter can be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a reasoned and speaking order on the appeals pending before him. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeals afresh, after allowing due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial)
Neha
Page | 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