2009 (6) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xamining the records and hearing both sides, I have found a fit case for remand to the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I take up the appeal itself. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved, the party preferred an a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... led by the party was also dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act vide order dated 19-11-2008. The present appeal of the party is directed against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Heard both sides. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the pre-deposit order dated 5-8-2008, not being a speaking order, cannot be sustained in law. As held by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 10 days of receipt of this order. On compliance the appeal shall be heard and decided in due course. The above pre-deposit order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained for the reasons noted in the present appeal and the same is set aside. Consequently, the final order passed by the appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35F is also set aside. The pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X