Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Haldia on 20 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
STAY PETITION NO.E/S/70891/2013
AND
EXCISE APPEAL NO.E/A/70864/2013
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.01/HAL/2013 DATED 30.03.2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I), KOLKATA)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities ?
M/S. RAMSARUP LOHH UDYOG LTD.
APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRI N.K.CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S);
SHRI S.P.PAL, A.R. (APPRAISER) FOR THE REVENUE. CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing & Decision: 20.11.2014 ORDER NO.FO/A/75657/14 Per Dr. D.M.Misra This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of CENVAT Credit of Rs.27,48,110/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Interim Stay Order was passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), without hearing them. The appeal was, thereafter, dismissed due to non-compliance with the stay order dated 15.02.2010 in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the issue relates to availment of CENVAT Credit on cements. He submits that they have strong case on merit. In this context, he refers to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Packwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Kol-V, 2010(255) ELT 0409(Tri.-Kolkata). He also submits that they are facing severe financial hardship and direction of pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. He prays that the matter may be remitted back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit.
3. Ld. AR for the Revenue does not dispute the facts submitted by the ld. Advocate. He has no objection, if the matter is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision afresh, on merit.
4. We find that at this stage, the Appeal itself could be disposed of. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of predeposit and with the consent of both sides, we take up the Appeal for disposal.
4.1. We find that the appeal was not decided on merit, but was dismissed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the stay order dated 15.02.2010. We take note of the fact that the stay order was passed without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to place their case. Accordingly, following the principle laid down in Packwell Plastics case (supra), the matter is remitted to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the stay application/appeal afresh, on merit, after affording an opportunity of hearing. All issues are kept open. The Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
SD/-27.11.14 SD/-26.11.14
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DUTTA/
3
E/A/70864/2013
3