9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hraseology such an application is couched must be summarily rejected as without jurisdiction; unless such order (directing predeposit) is itself a nullity for any reason of lack of inherent jurisdiction of the officer passing the order or like circumstances - Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have rejected the appeal solely on the ground of failure of predeposit, one of the grounds adverted to in the impugned order. The impugned order, to the extent it proceeded to reject the appeal on merits as well, is however unsustainable; as the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to decide upon merits of the appeal is contingent upon predeposit - However the order rejected the appeal for failure of predeposit, is impeccable and sustained. - Appeal No.ST/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waiver of predeposit; and the appellant should deposit 50% each of the assessed tax and penalty, within the specified period and furnish proof of deposit by 28.3.2012. This order further recorded that failure to deposit would render the appeal liable for rejection for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. It would appear that on 19.3.2012, the appellant addressed a letter to the appellate Commissioner to reconsider the order dt. 24.2.2012. It is not disputed that the appellant failed to comply with the predeposit ordered on 24.2.2012. 5. By the impugned order dt. 21.5.2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to decide the appeal on merits while simultaneously considering the letter addressed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is couched must be summarily rejected as without jurisdiction; unless such order (directing predeposit) is itself a nullity for any reason of lack of inherent jurisdiction of the officer passing the order or like circumstances. 8. On the aforesaid analysis, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have rejected the appeal solely on the ground of failure of predeposit, one of the grounds adverted to in the impugned order. The impugned order, to the extent it proceeded to reject the appeal on merits as well, is however unsustainable; as the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to decide upon merits of the appeal is contingent upon predeposit. 9. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore dt. 21.5.2012; but to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
