Shri. Manoj Kumar, M.D. Shiman vs Commissioner, Central Excise & ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal20 April 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/88504/14-MUM, E/88505/14

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, having been informed that the duty, cess and interest directed by its earlier stay order have been deposited, treats the statutory deposit condition as satisfied and declines to dismiss the appeal on that ground alone. Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed an appeal without reaching the merits solely for non-filing of a condonation-of-delay application, and the matter has been remanded, the appellant is entitled to a further opportunity to file that application within a fixed time, with the Commissioner (Appeals) then deciding condonation and, if condonation is granted, the appeal on merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO. IIAppeal No. E/88504/14-MUM, E/88505/14

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.NSK-EXCUS-000-APP-03-04 dated 12/5/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nashik] For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=======================================================

Shri. Manoj Kumar, M.D. Shiman M/s. Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills :

Applicants

Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Nashik :

Respondent

Appearance

None for the Appellants Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 20/4/2015 Date of decision 20/4/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.K. Jain

This Tribunal vide stay order No. S/94-95/15/EB dated 23/2/2015 has directed the applicant to deposit the balance of amount of duty and also interest. The applicant has informed that they have deposited the balance of duty of Rs. 2,09,513/- and Education Cess of Rs. 16,190/- totally amounting to Rs. 2,25,703/- and interest amounting to Rs. 2,07,450/-.

2. In view of the said position the applicant has complied with order of this Tribunal dated 23/2/2015. We find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merit due to the fact that COD application has not been filed.

3. On the last date of hearing Ld. Counsel for the applicant regretted the delay in filing the COD application and submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner(Appeals) and they would file application for condonation of delay and thereafter the Commissioner(Appeals) can decide COD on merit and in case COD application is not found satisfactory then the same can be decide by the Commissioner(Appeals).

4. Though, we do not appreciate behavior of the appellant in the whole matter. Inasmuch as in spite of the fact that the matter was remanded by this Tribunal applicant has not bothered to file the COD application. However, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the fact that entire amount and duty and interest has already been deposited, we give one more chance to file the COD application on or before 26/6/2015 and appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said date. The Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter will fix a date and decide the COD application and if required appeals on merit.

(Dictated in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)

P.K. Jain Member(Technical)

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