9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.41,48,337/) and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/. The Tribunal further directed appellant no.2 to deposit penalty of Rs.1,00,000/out of the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order dated 29 October 2013 is passed on the application for dispensing with predeposit of duty and penalty for the purpose of the appellants' appeal being heard on merits. 2. At the request of the counsel, the appeal is itself taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. Before we deal with the merits of the appeal, we are shocked to note that time and again the Tribunal has been dismissing appeals of the appellants for noncompliance with the order of predeposit even in cases where the owner directly predeposits, the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivery of Tapal from CESTAT, Mumbaireg Due to paucity of fund postal department has stopped giving services to this office. Because of which, this office is not in a position to dispatch / deliver hearing notices, Orders, Letters, appeal memo etc. to the concerned parties/advocate/consultants. In meantime, you are requested to depute your staff (with proper authorization) to CESTAT, Mumbai at regular interval to collect the tapal meant for you, till the issue resolves. You can confirm the availability of tapal by calling dispatch section on Tel No.022-2375 4933 ext.305. Further, you are requested to verify Cause Lists and attend matter as per Cause List even though you have not received hearing notice. Further, you can confirm the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. 7. Considering the above facts, the order of dismissal of appeal is set aside. The order of predeposit is varied to the extent that the amount already deposited would be considered as predeposit. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits." 6. Again on 4 July 2013, we had an occasion to deal with the similar situation where the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for noncompliance in spite of pendency of appeal before this Court at the admission stage and this Court in Saswad Mill Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, PuneIII, 2013 (32) STR 177 (Bom.) observed as under: " 2. However, in spite of the aforesaid fact having been brought to the notice of the CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this stage for the reason that the issues raised are in respect of the factual aspects of the controversy which is subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. The same would be explained in depth at the final hearing of the appellants' appeal on merits. At this stage, we see no substantial question of law arising. Therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits at this stage. 10. Even so, we are of the view that when the Tribunal itself found that it was not a case requiring the appellant no.1 company to deposit the entire duty amount but only 50% of the duty demand. It follows that ordinarily the Tribunal should not direct the appellant to deposit any amount towards penalty. We are of the view that where the Tribunal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
