Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ruby Confectionery Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 22 January, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/28487/2013 in E/27910/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/27910/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 40/2013 (H-IV) CE dated 26/06/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, HYDERABAD-II (Appeal).] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER 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? No 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 M/s. Ruby Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. 7-3-101 & 102, Old Kurnool Road, Kattedan, HYDERABAD 500 077. AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD 500 001. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Dayanand. K., CA For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 22/01/2015 Date of Decision: 22/01/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20118 / 2015 Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appeal has been rejected by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that appellants did not make the pre-deposit as per the directions given by him. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that on the very same issue in the case of another assessee who was manufacturing confectionery like the appellants for Parle, the Commissioner (A) in his Order No.630/2012 dated 14.11.2012 had dropped the demand.
2. Since another Commissioner (A) has dropped the demand on very same issue, I consider that in this case also the Commissioner (A) should consider the appeal without insisting on any pre-deposit. In view of the above position, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived, appeal is taken up for final decision, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (A) with a request to decide the matter without insisting on any pre-deposit. Needless to say that appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2