Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Iwi Newstech India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appln.No.E/S/1094/10 APPEAL No.E/980/10 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.YDB/25/Bel/2010 dated 19/01/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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 : 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? ========================================
IWI Newstech India Pvt Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Belapur Appearance:
None for appellant Shri.H.B. Negi, SDR, for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 20/06/2011 Date of Decision : 20/06/2011 ORDER NO Per: Ashok Jindal
1. The applicants have filed this appeal along with stay application against the impugned order wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The facts of the case are that against the order-in-original wherein demands of Rs.15,20,000/- was confirmed against the appellants along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh on Newstech India Pvt Ltd., under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of confirmation of duty demand, interest and penalty on them. While dealing the stay application of the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed them to make a pre-deposit of 50% of duty and 50% of penalty vide order dated 20/07/2009 within 10 days of the receipt of the order.
3. The appellants paid 50% of duty demanded, but they did not inform the Commissioner (Appeals) whether they have paid 50% of penalty or not. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. Against the said order, the appellants are in appeal.
4. None appeared on behalf of the appellants despite notice. But considering the issue involved is in a narrow compass, the appeal is taken up for final disposal, after waiving the condition of pre-deposit.
5. Considering the fact that the impugned order is not on merit but the appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the stay order. We have also observed that the appellants have made a pre-deposit of 50% of duty and the same is sufficient in compliance with the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, we remand back the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case without insisting on them any further pre-deposit. Therefore, the appeal as well as stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) pj 1 2