Sri Vinayaga Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No.89/2014-ST
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay in filing the appeal, where the explanation offered is found reasonable, may be condoned, and the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Where the appellant is directed to deposit a sum pending reconciliation of an accounting discrepancy, the Tribunal may impose such a pre-deposit as a condition of proceeding, having regard to the interest of Revenue, and may remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a de novo hearing and fresh order on the reconciliation, with the stay application disposed of accordingly.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/COD/41936/2014 & ST/S/41937/2014 & ST/41655/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.89/2014-ST dt. 21.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
Sri Vinayaga Enterprises Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Respondent
Appearance:
Shri P.K.Parameswaran, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri R.Subramaniam, AC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of Hearing/Decision : 26.02.2015
FINAL ORDER No.40231/2015
Per D.N. Panda
1. The delay explained for condonation of delay appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, delay is condoned and MA (COD) is allowed.
2. Ld. counsel submits that appropriate reconciliation is possible and that can be made to resolve the discrepancy pointed out in para-4 of the appellate order.
3. Pending reconciliation as submitted above and looking to the interest of Revenue, appellant is directed to deposit Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only over and above the amount if any already deposited prior to this proceeding) within 4 weeks from today. Within a week of the deposit, appellant shall produce the challan before the learned adjudicating authority and make an application before that authority praying for fixation of date of hearing to reconcile the difference in question.
4. Upon compliance to this order and an application made as directed above, learned adjudicating authority shall grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant to reconcile the discrepancy and pass appropriate order on the basis of outcome thereof. We may state that concession in penalty may also be granted at the de novo stage if that is considered appropriate.
5. The stay application is disposed with the aforesaid direction and appeal is also remanded to the authority above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs 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