2012 (9) TMI 879 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Non compliance of provisions of Section 35F - Held that - appellant has paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 21/09/2012 in addition to the amount of Rs.50,000/- already paid and noted by the Commissioner(Appeals). The latest payment of Rs.75,000/- is evidenced by G.A.R.-7 receipt produced by the appellant. With this payment, the appellant has, admittedly, predeposited an amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs as against our direction for predeposit of Rs.1 lakh and, therefore, there can be no difficulty for the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of their appeal (against Order-in-Original) on merits - Therefore, matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Waiver and stay of adjudged dues, compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, predeposit amount, disposal of appeal on merits, remand to Commissioner (Appeals), reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the application sought waiver and stay regarding the adjudged dues. The Tribunal noted a previous round of litigation on the same subject matter where the appellant was directed to predeposit Rs.1 lakh for the appeal to be heard on merits. However, the lower appellate authority only acknowledged a predeposit of Rs.50,000, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellant then made an additional payment of Rs.75,000, totaling Rs.1.25 lakhs, exceeding the initial predeposit requirement. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal on merits without further predeposit, emphasizing the appellant's right to a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The key issue addressed was the compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act concerning the predeposit amount required for the appeal process. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of meeting this statutory requirement, as failure to do so resulted in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal in this case. By exceeding the predeposit amount specified in the initial direction, the appellant rectified the non-compliance issue, allowing for the appeal to be reconsidered on its merits without any further predeposit requirement.

Another significant aspect of the judgment was the Tribunal's decision to remand the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration on its merits. By setting aside the impugned order and instructing the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal without insisting on additional predeposit, the Tribunal ensured that the appellant's case would be reviewed based on its substantive merits, providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their arguments and evidence.

Furthermore, the judgment disposed of the stay application, indicating that the matter related to the stay of proceedings was also resolved by the Tribunal. The comprehensive approach taken by the Tribunal in addressing the issues of predeposit compliance, appeal disposal on merits, and remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) demonstrates a fair and just consideration of the appellant's case, ensuring procedural correctness and adherence to statutory requirements while safeguarding the appellant's right to a reasonable opportunity to present their case.