Meduri Structurals vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 024-2015 dated 19/02/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (APPEALS), MYSORE ]

* For approval and signature:

* HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER * HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Meduri Structurals H.no.12,120,ram Mandir Road,wadi,gulbarga GULBARGA - 585225 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. PRADYUMNA G.H. ADVOCATE C/O. KENTREE CONSULTANTS NO.371, 8TH MAIN, SADASHIV NAGAR, BANGALORE -80 For the Appellant Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 08/09/2015

Date of Decision: 08/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21884 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

There is a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal which is on the ground of the proprietor being not well and was under treatment for diabetes mullitus and hypertension. Inasmuch as the delay is not on the higher side, we condone the same subject to the appellant depositing a cost of Rs 5000/- within a period of eight weeks from day.

2. We further note that the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. The amended sections with effect from 06.08.2014 requires the appellant to deposit 7.5% of the duty confirmed against them. The appeal was filed by the appellant on 08.08.2014 and was received in the O/O the Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.08.2014. The appellant deposited the said amount of 7.5% on 24.10.2014. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken note of the said fact but has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the said deposit has not been made at the time of filing of the appeal.

3. It is seen that the provisions of Section 35 F were amended from 06.08.2014 and appeal was filed on 08.08.2014. As such it was a recent amendment, and non-deposit of the dues along with appeal should not be held to be so vital to the appellants case. As the law was recent, we condone the delay in depositing the amount in terms of Section 35 F and set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to him for a decision on merits without raising the objection. The appellant would show the compliance with the deposit of cost of R. 5000/- to the Commissioner (Appeals) who would, after ascertaining the same should dispose of the appeal on merits. We make it clear that non-deposit of the cost would result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. COD application as also the appeal gets disposed of in above manner.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

pnr

2