2012 (7) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of appeals - non-compliance with the Order of the redeposit - appeal to Tribunal - Held that - As decided in CCE, Chandigarh vs. Smithkline Beecham Co. Health C. Ltd 2003 (9) TMI 82 (SC) that if the Commissioner (Appeals) merely dismisses any appeal for not making the predeposit, then the only question remains to be decided whether the appeal can be decided on its merits or not - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the merits of the case, thus the matter is remanded back for reconsideration on merits without insisting for the redeposit.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal on ground of non-compliance with predeposit.

Analysis:
The Appellants filed appeals against the Order-in-Appeal, where the Commissioner dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the predeposit requirement. The Appellant defaulted in duty payment and were required to pay duty consignmentwise through PLA. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner. Both sides agreed that the Commissioner did not decide the issue on its merits.

Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Smithkline Beecham Co. Health C. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that if an appeal is dismissed solely for not making the predeposit, the question arises whether the appeal can be decided on its merits. In this case, the Commissioner did not decide the merits of the case, prompting the Tribunal to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration without insisting on the predeposit. All issues were kept open, emphasizing that the Appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, all the appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair consideration of the case on its merits.