Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 5 March, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/896/05-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/66/NGP-I/2005 dated 24.2.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 5.3.2015 Date of Decision: 5.3.2015 ORDER NO Per: P.K. Jain In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Tribunal vide stay order No. S/397/2006/WZB/C-II/EB dated 8.3.2006 reported in 2006 (200) ELT 114 (Tri.-Mumbai), waived the requirement of pre-deposit.
2. Heard both sides.
3. We note that in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits but has dismissed the appeal due to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
4. In view of the above position, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits without insisting for any pre-deposit of duty. It is also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) will decide the matter on merits without getting influenced by the observation made by this Tribunal in para 4 of the stay order dated 8.3.2006 as the matter is very old and in past, it is seen that the appellants had not been responding to the personal hearings, summons and notices. The appellant is directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.4.2015 along with copy of their appeal and other submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) will thereafter fix a date for hearing and decide the matter on merits.
5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) tvu 1 3