Shri T. Sundaresan vs Cce, Chennai-Iii
- CitationAppeal No. 150/2014 (M-III) dated 07.07.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasons the Tribunal gives for admitting the appeal and remitting it are these. Where the delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal arises from confusion, caused by an amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as adopted by the Finance Act, 1994, as to the quantum of statutory pre-deposit and the time for making it, and that delay is inadvertent and not deliberate, the Tribunal may condone the delay and admit the appeal for disposal. Where the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with its own stay order rather than deciding it on merits, the matter may be remitted to that authority to be heard on merits, with the requirement of pre-deposit satisfied to the extent specified by the amended law, the deposit particulars being verified on remand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 150/2014 (M-III) dated 07.07.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Chennai).
Shri T. Sundaresan : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai-III : Respondent
Appearance
Shri J. Shankararaman, Adv., For the applicant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N, PANDA, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
FINAL ORDER No. 40355 / 2015
Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.03.2015
Per: D.N. Panda
Ld. Counsel explains that due to amendment of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as adopted by Finance Act, 1994, appellant was under the confusion as to quantum of deposit to be made and time to make the statutory deposit has caused delay of 52 days in preferring appeal before Tribunal. The delay so made is inadvertent and not deliberate.
2. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits but has dismissed the same due to non-compliance of the stay order passed by him. Therefore, if the matter goes back condoning delay and waiving requirement of pre-deposit in view of the deposit of the specified amount, the appellant shall get justice before that authority.
2. Revenue has no serious objection to the proposition put of appellant as above.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. In view of the reasons explained by the appellant, MA (COD) is allowed and the appeal is admitted for disposal.
5. Ld. Counsel says that when the appellant constructed residential complex for M/s. Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd., this bench of the Tribunal having granted waiver, the appellant also deserves consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act without insisting pre-deposit.
6. Appellants proposition aforesaid appears to be sound at this stage, for which MA (COD) is disposed and the appeal is remitted to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the same on merit, verifying the deposit particulars stated by Ld. Counsel, which is to the extent specified by the amended law.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB 1
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