Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Kolkata Ii on 24 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
SP-582/10
& Ex. Appeal No.512/10
Arising out of O/A No.26/Kol.II/2010 dated 31.3.2010 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata.
For approval and signature:
SHRI S. K. GAULE, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL 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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata II
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri K. K. Banerjee, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Misra, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) for the Department CORAM:
SHRI S. K. GAULE, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 24. 05. 2012 ORDER NO.. Per Shri S. K. Gaule :
The applicant filed this application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.20,69,167/- and penalty of an equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The contention is that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the stay petition without granting them a hearing and ordered for predeposit of 50% of the entire amount of duty through PLA and since they could not comply with his direction in due time, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The contention of the applicants is that they already paid the entire dues through Cenvat Account. They have placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baba Viswakarma Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2012 (278) ELT 68 (Tri.-Del.). The contention is that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits.
3. After hearing both sides, we find the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of predeposit of balance amount, we take up the appeal for disposal. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on its merits. Therefore, we remand the case to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on its merits without insisting for any further predeposit. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be given to the appellants. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand. Stay petition is disposed of.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/ Sd/
( DR. D. M. MISRA ) ( S.K.GAULE )
JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
mm
2
Ex.Appeal No.512/10