Uttam Biscuit Company Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 84/2008 dated 30/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. 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? No 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

Uttam Biscuit Company Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 41, 47 & 48 IDA Jeedimetla Hyderabad Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-IV Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad  500 001 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Harish R, Advocate For the Appellant

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, DR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 09/09/2015 Date of Decision: 09/09/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21898 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

It is seen that when the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand to the extent of Rs. 76.75 Lakhs (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand approximately), Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) as a condition of hearing of their appeal. The said Stay Order of Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which stayed the same and the matter was pending.

2. After a gap of around eight years Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order observed that as the Writ Petition so filed against the Stay Order was pending before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and has not been disposed of the same was called from the call book and decided. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal subject to the Andhra Pradesh High Courts decision on the Writ Petition filed by the asessee. He observed that once judgment is delivered on their Writ Petition by the High Court, the appellants may prefer the appeal again.

3. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) stand challenged before us. In the meanwhile the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was withdrawn as the appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was pending before Tribunal.

4. On appreciation of the above, it is revealed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not disposed of the appeal on merits as he was waiting for the Andhra Pradesh High Court but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal after the High Courts order. In the High Court the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn. As such we are of the view that the entire matter needs to go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) once again, who would decide the appellants stay petition afresh, after giving them an opportunity of hearing and thereafter would dispose of the appeal. We order accordingly. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss