2011 (9) TMI 470 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for non compliance 25% of duty and penalty - Held - 25% of the duty should be sufficient to hear and dispose on merits without insisting for any further deposits. Tribunal cannot go into the merits of the case, unless the first appellate authority decides the issue on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts confirmed by adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance of pre-deposit orders.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved four Stay Petitions challenging the Order-in-Appeal No.388 to 389/2010/Commr(A)/CMC/Raj, which required the appellants to deposit 25% of the duty and penalty amounts. The appellants had complied with the duty deposit but not the penalty. The issue revolved around the use of brand names 'Digvijay' by the family, with the appellants claiming ownership of the brand names based on trademark authority's letter. The Revenue argued that the brand name belonged to someone else. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had not decided on the merits of the case, and according to settled law, the Tribunal cannot delve into the merits without such a decision.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, allowed the Stay Petitions filed by the assesses. It was observed that the first appellate authority had not provided findings on the case's merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the deposits made by the appellants for 25% of the duty were sufficient to proceed with the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without requiring further deposits. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeals by way of remand, thereby disposing of the Stay Petitions as well.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, granted relief to the appellants by remanding the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without the need for additional deposits. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders and the necessity for the first appellate authority to address the case's merits before the Tribunal can intervene.