Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hetero Labs Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ... on 8 October, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No.21854 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/28586/2013 in E/27978/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/27978/2013-SM [Arising out of No.46-2013 dated 10/07/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , HYDERABAD-IV ] Hetero Labs Ltd (unit-iii), Eou-ii, 22-110, Ida, Jeedimetla, HYDERABAD - 500055 AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-iv POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 08/10/2014 Date of Decision: 08/10/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) for failure to deposit the 50% of the total duty demanded. The issue involved is whether the appellant could have utilised CENVAT credit for clearance of inputs as such by a EOU.
2. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However, the learned counsel has filed a memorandum wherein he has requested for adjournment or alternatively submits that the stay may be granted in view of the fact that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs. Matrix Laboratories Ltd. [2012(281) ELT 569 (Tri. Bang.)]. On going through the records and hearing the learned AR, it is seen that there are two decisions of this Tribunal in the very same appellants case. In the decision relied upon by the appellant, the Single Member of this Tribunal took a view in favour of the appellant which is a final order. On the other hand, there is another order passed by this Tribunal as reported in 2012(283) ELT 158 (Tri. Bang.) in the case of Matrix Laboratory Ltd. wherein predeposit was ordered. Since the final order takes precedence over stay orders as regards precedence, prima facie, in my opinion, the appellant has made out a case for complete waiver and hearing of the appeal without predeposit. Since the appeal has been dismissed for non-payment of predeposit as ordered by the Commissioner, the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) for decision on merits. Since I have come to the conclusion that no predeposit is required, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) with a direction to hear the appeal on merit without insisting on any predeposit after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja 2