Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Rajan Prints vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I on 26 December, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/410-411/2011 (Arising out of OIA-RKA/561-562/SRT-I/2010 dated 26/10/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I) 1. M/s Rajan Prints 2. Shri Rajan Vakharia : Appellant (s) Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.12.2016 ORDER No. A/ 11891-11892/2016 dated 26.12.2016 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. These two appeals are filed against OIA No. RKA/561-562/SRT-I/2010 dated 26/10/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I.
3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-compliance with direction of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the issue was not considered on merit . He further submits that the issue is now covered by the judgement of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prayagraj Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI 2013 (290) ELT 61(Guj). It is his contention that since the issue has not been decides on merit, the matter be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit. The Ld. AR has no objection.
4. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not disposed of the appeal on merit, but, dismissed the same for default on making pre-deposit as directed by him. In these circumstances, the appeals are remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merit, taking into consideration the development of law on the issue, without insisting any pre-deposit. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellants. All issues on merit are kept open.
5. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. ??
??
??
??
2