9911796707
TMI BlogPre-deposit waiver – guidelines for disposing of applications by commnr.(Appeals)X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut grant of personal hearing (relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CA No.3597 of 1995 dated 25.3.96 in the case of Union of India vs. M/S Jesus Sales Corporation, reported in 1996 (83) ELT 486(SC) and the Board's Circular No. 450/16/99-CX dated 30.3.99) and rejected the appeals for non-compliance with the requirements of pre-deposit, and that CEGAT. Chennai has held in two such cases that since the Supreme Court judgement was not with reference to Sec. 35A of Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (A) has to grant a PH before passing final orders of rejection. CEGAT has accordingly set aside orders rejecting appeal and remanded the appeals to Commissioner (A). Chennai. 2. You would be aware that Board had directed field 0fficers not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decide the appeal only on the ground of non-compliance of directions issued under the provisions of Section 35F without going into merits seriously but as the law stands at present if before disposal of appeal a personal hearing is sought it cannot be denied. Commissioners (A) will, therefore, have to take care that this legal requirement is met before finally disposing off any appeal. 3. It would appear from Commissioner (A)'s letter that no hearing was granted before disposal of the final appeal. In such circumstances, the CEGAT appears to have rightly remanded the matters to him for de novo consideration. Such situations can be avoided in future by granting a hearing quickly after disposal of stay petition application and then passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. The Tribunal in the said order held that the appeal under Section 35B against such an order passed by Commissioner (A) under Section 35F was non-maintainable and the appeal filed before CEGAT was dismissed. In the case of L.C. Hotline Column Picture Tubes Ltd. Vs. UOI (L.P.A. No. 200 of 1998), the Gwalior Bench of M.P. High Court while varying the order of the Learned Single Judge of the same Court directed the appellant to deposit an amount which was more than that ordered to be deposited by the Commissioner (A). It was made clear that in the event of appellant failing to comply with the terms of the High Court Order, the orders of the Commissioner dismissing the appeal for non-compliance would remain intact. The Gujrat High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
