9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Fibre Glass Insulation (2000 (11) TMI 453 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI), the Tribunal in two other cases of Nicco Corporation Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 815 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) & Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. (2012 (11) TMI 1002 - CESTAT BANGALORE) has taken contrary view and has clearly held that pre-deposit made by the way of debiting the Cenvat Cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant. Shri A.K. Jain, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Though this matter is listed for hearing of the stay application only, after hearing this matter for such time, the Bench was of the view that the matter can be taken up for the final disposal. Accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. The allegation against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his final order-in-appeal dated 3-4-2013 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance on the ground that the amount of pre-deposit should have been paid in cash, i.e. by debiting the PLA and it could not be deposited by debiting Cenvat Credit Account and in this regard he relied upon the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Fibre Glass Insulation v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is recognized as valid pre-deposit under Section 35F. He, therefore, pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) decision for merits. 5. Sh. A.K. Jain, learned Jt. CDR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of the dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered in the case of M/s. Fibre Glass Insulation (supra). The judgment in case of Birla Yamaha Ltd. (supra) is of a Bench of Three Members. In view of this I hold that the impugned order is not correct and the appellant would have to be treated as having complied with the direction of pre-deposit in the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal merits be heard on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
