Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Magnet Industries (Cal) Pvt.Ltd vs Cce-Kol-I on 19 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.E/248/10
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.08/Kol-I/2010 dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
M/s.Magnet Industries (Cal) Pvt.Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE-KOL-I
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
NONE for the Appellant Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue CORAM:
Honble Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 19.12.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/76396/2016 Per Shri P.K.Choudhary.
None present for the Appellant despite Notice, nor there is any request for adjournment.
2. Ld.AR for the Revenue brought to the notice of the Bench that this is a case of clandestine removal and that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) directed the Appellant to make pre-deposit of 50% of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed, but the Appellant failed to make the pre-deposit. Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed the Appeal before him for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ld.AR further submits that the Appellant had complied with the direction of pre-deposit by depositing the 50% i.e. Rs.3,72,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred only) of the amount directed to be deposited.
3. Since the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed for failure to pre-deposit the directed amount under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I direct the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the issue on merit, after recording compliance of the above direction without insisting any further pre-deposit from the appellant. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for re-considering the case on merit. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant to present their case. All issues are kept open and both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their support.
4. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.)
SD/
(P.K.CHOUDHARY) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
sm
2
Appeal No.E/248/10