9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. E/A/270/2009 wherein the following order has been passed: "None present for the appellants. Heard the ld. A.R. for the Department. We find that vide this. Tribunal's Order No. S-189/Kol/2012 dated 6-3-2012, the appellants were directed to make pre-deposit 25% of duty within eight weeks and to report compliance on 10-5-2012. The appellants did not report the compliance. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. xx xx xx" Further challenge has also been made to an order dated 6-9-2012 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. E/M/211/2012 arising out of Excise Appeal No. E/A/270/2009 (Annexure-1), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner placed reliance on various judgments in support of his contentions and in particular, the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of M/s. Victory Impex v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana and Another, passed in CWP No. 8433 of 2012 [2013 (287) E.L.T. 38 (P & H)] where the Division Bench came to held that the duty levied under Section 3 of the Act can be discharged by way of payment in cash or it may be paid by utilizing CENVAT Credit. Therefore, it is asserted that the reversal of CENVAT credit by the petitioner-company, at its Ghaziabad Unit, amounted to compliance of the directions of the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order by which the petitioner's appeal came to be rejected under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the registered premises transferring the credit as well as receiving such credit, the amount of credit transferred and the particulars of such entry as mentioned in clause (i), and such recipient premises can take CENVAT credit on the basis of such transfer challan as mentioned in clause (ii):" 5. Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, strenuously contends that the petitioner's Unit with which the present case is concerned, is located in the State of Odisha under separate Commissionerate and the claim of having reversed for. Cenvat credit in separate Commissionerate, is not permissible either under Central Excise Rules, 2002 or Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A part from the same, learned counsel for the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being made. If such dispensation is not allowed then the Tribunal would issue a show cause before taking up the appeal for dismissal on account of failure of pre-deposit." 7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the revenue and on perusing the impugned orders under Annexures-6 & 11, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be best met if the matter is remitted back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for considering the questions as to whether its direction for pre-deposit has been complied with or not. We are of the aforesaid view since clearly the appellant had not been represented before the Tribunal, on the date on which Annexure-6 was pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
