9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 339 - AT - Central ExciseNon compliance with the provisions of Section 35F - find that as the amount of penalty has been paid through PLA and not from the Cenvat Account, therefore, there is due compliance of the condition of the stay order for making deposit as directed - The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not decided the appeals on merits - As note that the applicants had complied with the condition of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits - The appeals is dismissed by way of remand.
Issues: Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding penalty payment through PLA vs. TR6 challan.
Analysis: 1. The appellants appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing their appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) insisted on penalty payment through TR6 challan, while the appellants had paid the penalty through PLA. The appellants argued that they had fulfilled the stay order condition by paying the penalty through PLA, which was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The Tribunal found that the penalty had indeed been paid through PLA and not from the Cenvat Account, meeting the stay order deposit condition. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the appeals' merits in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeals' merits without requiring further deposit, providing the appellants with a fair hearing opportunity. 3. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals through remand, emphasizing the importance of complying with the stay order conditions and ensuring a fair consideration of the appeals on their merits. The judgment highlights the significance of correct payment methods for penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the need for proper procedural adherence in such cases to avoid dismissal of appeals based on technicalities.
|
