Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Anal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 4 May, 2001
ORDER G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. In this case question involved is whether failure to deposit the duty amount during pendency of the appeal with entail dismissal of the appeal without notice. I find that since the issue lies in a narrow compass, I am of the view that the appeal itself could be taken up for hearing after waiving deposit.
2. In this case the Order-in-Original the assessees was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,150/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for violation of modvat rules. The party has filed declaration under Rule 57G on 30.12.95. This was not considered by the Assistant Commissioner. An appeal was filed along with the application under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant also moved the High Court of Gujarat, who by there order No. SCA No. 1035/99 directed the appellate authority to decide the said application. The appellate authority directed the appellant to pay 1/2 of the amount demanded namely Rs. 1,33,000/-. The appellant it appears did not pay the amount. No notice of hearing was given before dismissing the appeal. I rely on the judgement of this judgement of Tribunal in the case of Entek IRD International (I) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II[2000 (115) ELT 515(Tribunal)]. Which holds that dismissal of appeal without hearing evidencing payment or otherwise of the amount indicated in the order disposed under section 35F Application is wrong. I therefore feel that the impugned order is set aside the appellant is directed to place all the materials including the proof of payment of the said sum so that the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs Ahmedabad, will hear the appellant and decide the matter afresh. The appeal is remanded for this purpose.
3. Stay petition also stands disposed of.Pronounced in Court)