Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Carnation Industries ... vs Cce-Kol-Ii on 16 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.E/75754/16
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.03/KOL-II/2016 dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
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.Carnation Industries Ltd.(Unit-III)
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE-KOL-II
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue CORAM:
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 16.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 16.08.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/75827/2016 Per Shri H.K.Thakur.
A defect has been raised by the Registry on the ground that mandatory deposit has not been made.
2. Shri S.P.Siddhanta (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that entire amount of Rs.7,95,423/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Three only), confirmed by the Adjudicating authority, was paid before the adjudication which also stands appropriated in the Order-in-Original. That this aspect could not be brought to the notice of the first appellate authority, who has dismissed their application for non-compliance of the mandatory deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue confirmed that amount stands appropriated in the Order-in-Original.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records.
5. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether Appellant has made mandatory deposit as required under amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the fact that entire amount confirmed under the Order-in-Original stands paid and appellant is contesting the issue on merits it has to be considered that condition of mandatory deposit, before appeal is admitted, stands complied. First appellate authority has not decided the issue on merits, therefore, after setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.02.2016, the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the issue on merits as sufficient amount has already been appropriated in the Order-in-Original.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
sm
2
Appeal No.E-75754/16