2013 (5) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal u/s 35A/Stay petition Rejected - Refusal by the concerned officer to perform duties under Central Excise Act, 1944 Held that - Order in original is not served upon the appellant on the date as mentioned and it was bounden of the first appellate authority to consider the date of service as 17.02.11 and proceed ahead and dispose the matter on merits. Instead doing so, the first appellate authority has rejected the stay petition and appeal u/s 35A without assigning any reasons. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition and appeal against order in appeal No.OIA No.CCE-SRT-I/SSP-159/U/S 35A(3), dt.29.11.12.
2. First appellate authority's failure to pass the order on merits.
3. Lack of reasoning in the first appellate authority's decision under Section 35A.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a stay petition and appeal challenging an order in appeal under Section 35A(3). The Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of immediately after allowing the waiver of pre-deposit. The records revealed that the first appellate authority did not address the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the authority deviated from the matter and dismissed the stay petition and appeal without valid grounds under Central Excise Law. The Tribunal set aside the unreasoned order and remanded the appeal for reconsideration by the first appellate authority.

2. The first appellate authority failed to consider the date of service of the original order, leading to an erroneous rejection of the stay petition and appeal under Section 35A without providing adequate reasons. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for appellate authorities to provide reasoning for such decisions. Since the impugned order lacked merit and proper justification, it was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the order and directed a fresh consideration by the first appellate authority in adherence to the principles of natural justice.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal through remand, highlighting the importance of a reasoned decision-making process in matters concerning stay petitions and appeals. The judgment underscores the significance of following due process and ensuring that decisions are based on substantive reasoning and compliance with legal requirements. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural obligations incumbent upon authorities in adjudicating disputes within the framework of relevant laws and regulations, particularly in the realm of Central Excise Law.