2000 (1) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondents. [Order]. - Shri J.C. Patel, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-appearance (non-prosecution) on the basis of an unreported Tribunal judgment, which is not permissible, in view of the decision in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335 of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal as they had sought adjournment under the letter dated 13-9-1999, and the matter is pending for more than 4 years. As contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the order is in violation of Section 35B, clause (4) of the Central Excise Act. So this cannot be maintained. It has to be set aside. 3. Regarding the pre-deposit, in the sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed not be present in the final products. The stay application has to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed. The pre-deposit of Rs. 60,175.75 is waived and recovery stayed. 4. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the merits of the case the appeal is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant and dispose off it according to law.
Case laws, Decisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X