2016 (12) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - non-compliance - Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Since, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits of the case; I remand the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the appellants are also requested to co-operate and file all the required documents in support of their claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of interim order
- Entitlement of the appellant to take credit on a specific service

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of interim order
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance of an interim order requiring the appellant to deposit a specified amount by a certain date, as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant deposited the amount before the deadline, but a communication gap led to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on non-compliance with the pre-deposit order issued on a later date. The advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant had indeed complied with the pre-deposit condition within the stipulated time frame. The Tribunal noted the communication gap and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on its merits after providing a fair hearing to the appellants and requested the appellants to cooperate by submitting all necessary documents to support their claim.

Issue 2: Entitlement of the appellant to take credit on a specific service
The appellant, a manufacturer of certain products falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had availed credit of service tax paid on "Outward Transportation of goods up to the customer's place service" for a particular period. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the detailed submissions provided by the appellants regarding their compliance with the pre-deposit condition within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal, upon hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the core issue in the appeal was whether the appellant was entitled to claim credit on the mentioned service. As the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough review on the merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, emphasizing the importance of considering the merits of the case and providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their arguments and evidence. The decision highlighted the need for proper communication between the parties involved in legal proceedings to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to adverse outcomes like the dismissal of appeals based on procedural grounds.