9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 62 - AT - Central ExciseNon-compliance of provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - On going through the records it is find that assessee have enclosed a copy of GR-7 Challan wherein entire directed amount has been deposited by them on 02.03.2012. In these circumstances the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) for non-compliance of provisions of section 35F is set aside and the case is remitted to back to decide the issue afresh without insisting any further pre-deposit.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant sought relief from the duty of Rs.1,27,328/- and an equal amount of penalty imposed. The Commissioner(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with section 35F of the Act. However, the appellant had paid the directed amount on 02.03.2012, as evidenced by the GR-7 Challan enclosed with their appeal petition. The Advocate for the Appellant highlighted the payment, while the Revenue contended that there was no evidence of communication to the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the payment. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage by waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with section 35F, but upon reviewing the records and the GR-7 Challan, it was evident that the directed amount had been deposited by the appellant on time. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) and remitted the case back to decide the issue afresh without insisting on further pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and kept all issues open. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in the open court by Dr. D.M. Misra, J.
|
