Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shree Shyam Pulp & Board Mills ... vs Cce, Meerut on 19 March, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi
COURT-I
Date of hearing/decision:19.03.2009
Excise Appeal No. 336 of 2009
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 135-CE/MRT-II/2008 dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut].
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
,,,,,,,,,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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Shree Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Limited Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Meerut Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for the Appellant Mr. R.K. Hasija, Advocate Appeared for the Respondent Mr. Amit Jain, DR Coram: Honble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Oral Order No.__________ Per Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar:
Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned DR. The ground on which the present appeal has been filed is that, the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the matter on merit rejected the appeal solely on the ground of failure to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit, in spite of the fact that the appellant has an arguable case on merits. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case. Considering the rival contention, it is suffice to observe that in view of various earlier orders passed in the proceedings between the parties by the Tribunal, the appellant is justified in contending that there is no cause to the Commissioner (Appeals) to refuse the opportunity to the appellant to be heard on merits without insisting for such pre-deposit.
2. More particularly in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in H.M.T. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula reported in 2008 (232) ELT 217 (Tri.-LB) as well as the stay orders passed in Appeal Nos. 1513 1515 and 1516 of 2007 and also in Appeal No.3521 of 2005 by this Tribunal, it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to take into consideration the fact of the said interim order passed in the said appeal before pressing for pre-deposit in the matter in hand. The interim order nowhere discloses the said aspect having been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, the appellant is justified in contending that there has been violation of rules of natural justice in the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence on this ground the impugned order is set aside and further the Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter without insisting on any pre-deposit. In this view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar) President (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) /Pant/