Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S.Surya Alloy Industries Ltd vs Cce-Bolpur on 9 August, 2010

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
       TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
        
Stay Petition Nos.E/S/584 & 585/10
&
Appeal Nos.E/514 & 515/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.52-53/BOL/10 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-IV) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

HONBLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT


1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 
    the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
   (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
    CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
    Authorative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
    of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
    Authorities?

 
M/s.Surya Alloy Industries Ltd.
Shri Ashis Rungta, Director

					                        Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)


Vs.



CCE-BOLPUR

 							                   Respondent (s)

Appearance:

NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Sharma, Authorized Representative (JDR) for the Revenue CORAM:
Honble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing/Decision :- 09.08.2010 Date of Pronouncement :- 09.08.2010 ORDER NO.
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard the learned J.D.R. as none appeared on behalf of the Applicants in spite of notice.
2. Applicants filed these Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties as the duty has already been paid. The contention of Applicants in the Appeal is that the impugned order is passed in violations of principles of natural justice. The Applicants filed Appeals before Commisisoner(Appeals) with a request to condone the delay of 2/3 days due to the reasons that Director was out of station for few days. The contention of Applicants in the memorandum of Appeal is that neither the request for condonation of delay is considered nor opportunity of hearing was granted to the Applicants. In these circumstances as the Applicants had already paid the duty the pre-deposit of penalties are waived for hearing of the Appeal and the Appeals are being taken up for hearing.
3. As per the provisions of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act the Commissioner(Appeals) is to give an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. Further I find that the Commissioner(A) is also empowered to condone the delay of 30 days on showing sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal within normal period of limitation. In the present case as no opportunity of hearing is granted to the Appellants nor their request for condonation of delay is considered therefore the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the Application for condonation of delay after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellants.
4. Appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/ (S.S.KANG) VICE PRESIDENT sm 3 Appeal No.E/514 & 515/2010