2015 (10) TMI 1248 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre dpeosit - Mandatory pre deposit - Section 35F - Held that - Taking into account that appellants have predeposited the mandatory penalty by debiting in RG-23 Account and also taking into account further debit of an amount of ₹ 9,434/- (2.5% of the demand) as predeposit before this Tribunal, we are of the view that appellants have complied with the predeposit whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non compliance of interim order and not decided the issue on merits. The delay in making pre-deposit payment before Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned. The appeal is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the case on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and pass orders in accordance with law. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Compliance with predeposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with predeposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act
The main issue in this case revolved around the compliance with the predeposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed a batch of three appeals for non-compliance of the predeposit order in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 35F that came into effect from 6.8.2014. The appellant, represented by the Managing Director, submitted that they had indeed complied with the predeposit requirements as per Section 35F of the Act. They provided evidence of the predeposit made, including copies of returns filed under Rule 9 of CCR and a letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the payment of pre-deposit amounting to Rs. 28,274, which was 7.5% of the demand. Additionally, the appellants had debited the mandatory penalty in the RG-23 Account and made a further predeposit of Rs. 9,434 (2.5% of the demand) before the Tribunal.

Issue 1 Analysis:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, concluded that the appellants had indeed complied with the predeposit requirements as mandated by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance with the interim order without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal, therefore, condoned the delay in making the pre-deposit payment before the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the appeal back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the case on its merits. The appellants were to be afforded an opportunity of hearing, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to pass orders in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the EH application was disposed of.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issue of compliance with the predeposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a hearing on its merits due to the appellants' compliance with the predeposit requirements.