M/S. H.M.T. & Ors vs Cce, Panchkula on 12 August, 2008
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.