Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tanfac Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/436/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.88/2003 (Pondicherry) dated 24.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 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?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. TANFAC Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 22.07.2009 Date of Decision: 22.07.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee against confirmation of duty demand of Rs.49,032/- together with equal amount of penalty, on the ground of non-compliance with the order passed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by non-payment of the duty amount.
2. We find that the duty amount stood paid on 10.2.1998. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the penalty of equal amount stands paid by the assessee. Since the duty and penalty have been deposited in compliance with the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in the absence of any finding on the merit of the demand, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall pass fresh order after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard in their defence without insisting on predeposit. The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3