Pvt. Ltd vs Cce-Jaipur-Ii
- CitationAppeal No. ST/51438/2014-CU [DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a stay order directing pre-deposit has in fact been complied with, the pre-deposit requirement is satisfied; the appellate authority cannot dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with that requirement, and the requirement is waived with the matter remanded for decision on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of order-in-appeal no. 391(OPD)ST/JPR-11/2013 dated 29.01.2014 passed by CCE-Jaipur-II]
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
M/s. Kanak Marbles and Granites
Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE-Jaipur-II Respondent
Appearance: Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mani Ram Sharma, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Shri R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 52030/2015
Per: R.K. Singh
Stay petition and appeal have been filed against order-in-appeal dated 31/12/2013 in terms of which the appellants appeal against order-in-original dated 24/05/2011 was dismissed for failure of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (appeals) observed that initially the earlier Commission (Appeals) vide stay order dated 21/07/2011 ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 2,78,675/-. Subsequently, the earlier stay order was modified vide order dated 14/09/2011 in terms of which the pre-deposit amount was reduced to Rs. 1,18,635/- to be deposited within 15 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed in the impugned order that the appellant had not even complied with the later stay order, and therefore, its appeal was rejected. The appellant has contended that it had duly complied with the stay order dated 14/09/2011 and deposited Rs. 1,18,635/- on 26/09/2011 and that in spite of that its appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. We find that as evidenced by copy of the challan the appellant had indeed deposited on 26/09/2011 the pre-deposit amount ordered vide stay order dated 14.09.2011 and had thus complied with the Commissioner (Appeals) said stay order. In view of this fact, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the assessees appeal on merits.
(Justice G Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
Ritu
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