2011 (1) TMI 988 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the appellants to make pre-deposit of 100% of duty demand without going into the merits of the case - Held that - As no reason has been given in the order for directing the appellants to make pre-deposit of 100% of the duty demand, order set aside and stay entire demand and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants without insisting on the pre-deposit. Stay applications are also disposed of in the above manner.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal of appeals for failure to make pre-deposit as directed in stay order; sustainability of direction for 100% duty pre-deposit; validity of ex-parte order by Commissioner (Appeals); lack of reasoning for pre-deposit directive; absence of cross-examination of transporters by adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed appeals against the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeals due to failure to make pre-deposit as directed in the stay order. The Tribunal found that the appeals could be disposed of without the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded accordingly with the consent of both parties.

2. Upon reviewing the impugned ex-parte order by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal noted that the order directed the appellants to make a 100% pre-deposit of the duty demand without providing any reasoning for this directive. The Tribunal emphasized that a reasoned order should accompany any pre-deposit demand. As the directive lacked justification, it was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeals being unsustainable as well.

3. The Tribunal addressed the issue raised by the appellants' advocate regarding the lack of cross-examination of transporters by the adjudicating authority. In response, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stayed the entire demand, and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits. The Commissioner was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing to the appellants without insisting on the pre-deposit. Consequently, the appeals were allowed through remand, and the stay applications were disposed of accordingly.