Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ceat Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nasik on 7 September, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal Nos. E/261/04 & E/1123/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RK/70 to 71/Nashik/2003 dated 22.10.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
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 : Yes 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?
====================================================== CEAT Ltd Appellant (Represented by: Mr.V.R. Inamdar, Authorized Representative) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Respondent (Represented by: Mr. H.B. Negi, SDR) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 07.09.2011 Date of Decision: 07.09.2011 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides. Since common issues are involved, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration.
2. The appellants filed these appeals against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeals for non compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the applicants failed to comply with the stay order.
3. The contention of the applicants is that the amount of penalty has been paid through PLA and this fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the contention of the applicants and dismissed their appeals on the ground that the amount of penalty is to be paid under TR6 challan.
4. We find that as the amount of penalty has been paid through PLA and not from the Cenvat Account, therefore, there is due compliance of the condition of the stay order for making deposit as directed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not decided the appeals on merits. As we note that the applicants had complied with the condition of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits without insisting on any further deposit after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
5. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court.) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 2