Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S Shree Shyam Filaments Ltd. vs Cce, Jaipur on 25 October, 2000
ORDER
P.G. Chacko
1. Having carefully examined the records and heard both sides, we feel that this is a fit case for final disposal at this stage and, accordingly, we allow this application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.
2. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand of duty amounting to over Rs. 11 lakhs against the appellants. The party preferred appeal against the order of adjudication to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also submitted application for waiver of pre-deposit. The lower appellate authority passed an order, in that application, directing the party to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The deposit was not made in terms of that order. Subsequently, the lower appellate authority rejected the party's appeal on account of non-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as per order dated 12.10.2000 which is impugned in this appeal.
3. It is submitted by Sh. Keshav Maloo, representative of the appellant-Company that the entire amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited by them on 19.10.2000 and that proof of such deposit has been brought on record in the present appeal (Annexure F on page 30). We have perused this document (marked as Annexure 'F') and we find that out of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs an amount of Rs.4,27,194/- was debited by the party in RG 23 A Part-II and the balance amount of Rs.72,806/- was paid in their PLA. It is submitted by the company's representative that the direction for deposit of Rs.5 lakhs had been duly complied with and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have disposed of the appeal on its merits after hearing them.
4. Ld. SDR, Sh. Ashok Mehta submits that the major part of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid by way of debt in the modvat account and the same cannot be considered to be appropriate deposit in terms of the interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He is, however, not opposed to a remand of the matter to the lower appellate authority for considering all the issues including the question whether the direction for deposit or Rs.5 lakhs was duly complied with or not.
5. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that this matter must go back to the lower appellate authority for a decision on merits in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing Id. Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellants. We make it clear that, as regards the question whether his direction for deposit of Rs.5 lakhs was duly complied with or not by the appellants, he will be at liberty to deal with that question as well.