2018 (11) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Non-Compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The appellant pursuant to direction of this Tribunal had deposited ₹ 10.00 lakhs. Since the issue has not been decided on merit, we remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh on merit, without insisting for any pre-deposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/151/2009 dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur regarding availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 1.3.1993 for goods manufactured, duty short paid, interest, and penalty.

The judgment involves an appeal filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur, related to availing SSI exemption for goods manufactured under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 1.3.1993. The appellant had exceeded the prescribed limit of clearance of specified goods during certain periods, leading to a show-cause notice for recovery of duty short paid, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demands, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) directed depositing the entire confirmed duty amount, which they partially complied with after an order from the Tribunal. The Revenue did not dispute the compliance and agreed to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the issue was not decided on merit by the Commissioner (Appeals) but dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the appellant had deposited a portion of the amount as directed, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit without insisting on any pre-deposit, keeping all issues open. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with procedural requirements such as Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while also emphasizing the need for decisions to be made on merit rather than solely on procedural grounds. It underscores the Tribunal's authority to remand matters back to lower authorities for a fresh decision when issues have not been adequately addressed. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of following legal procedures and the impact of non-compliance on the appeal process. The judgment ensures that the appellant has the opportunity for a fair consideration of the case on its merits without being hindered by procedural issues, ultimately upholding the principles of natural justice and due process in legal proceedings.