2001 (9) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent challenges.
2. Validity of appeal filing timeline and compliance with Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
3. Compliance with pre-deposit requirements and principles of natural justice.

Issue 1: Disposal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent challenges:
The judgment pertains to three appeals filed against a single order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by M/s Electronic Instrumentation and Control. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 65,384/- and imposed penalties totaling Rs. 5,270. The appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with pre-deposit directives under Section 35F of the Act. The appellants contended that they had deposited the amount but under a different account head. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider a letter from the appellants or provide an opportunity for personal hearing, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal challenging this order.

Issue 2: Validity of appeal filing timeline and compliance with Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998:
During the pendency of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee opted for the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, filing requisite declarations. The Commissioner acknowledged the declarations and determined the payable sum in each case. However, he later withdrew the certificate citing that the appeal was filed after the permitted period. The appellants argued that the appeals were filed within the allowable timeline, and the dispute was pending at the time of filing. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority, not the executive Commissioner, should determine the timeliness of the appeal.

Issue 3: Compliance with pre-deposit requirements and principles of natural justice:
The Commissioner (Appeals) directed a pre-deposit of duties confirmed in the cases, which the appellants claimed to have paid under a different heading. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit directives, especially without providing an opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The Tribunal allowed the appeals on grounds of denial of natural justice, remitting the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellants on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit and to issue appropriate orders.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses issues related to the disposal of appeals, validity of appeal filing timeline under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, compliance with pre-deposit requirements, and principles of natural justice in the decision-making process.