2011 (6) TMI 580 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application - non-compliance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appellants paid 50% of duty demanded, but they did not inform the Commissioner (Appeals) whether they have paid 50% of penalty or not. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act Held that - order is not on merit but the appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the stay order. appellants have made a pre-deposit of 50% of duty and the same is sufficient in compliance with the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). appeal as well as stay application is disposed of

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal for non-compliance with stay order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-Compliance with Stay Order: The appeal was filed against an order where a demand of Rs.15,20,000 was confirmed against the appellants along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to make a pre-deposit of 50% of duty and penalty within a specified time frame. The appellants complied with 50% of the duty demand but did not inform the Commissioner (Appeals) about the payment of 50% of the penalty. Consequently, their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act.

2. Dismissal of Appeal: Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, considering the narrow compass of the issue involved, the appeal was taken up for final disposal after waiving the pre-deposit condition. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was not based on merit but on the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the stay order.

3. Decision and Remand: The Tribunal observed that the appellants had made a pre-deposit of 50% of the duty, which was deemed sufficient compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case without any further pre-deposit requirement. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order, the subsequent considerations by the Tribunal, and the final decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.