9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for failure of pre-deposit, the Tribunal is authorised to consider the correctness appropriateness of the pre-deposit order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the non-compliance whereof resulted in dismissal of the appeal by that authority. - Matter remanded back - Following decision of Girnar Transformers [2014 (2) TMI 1132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Rectification allowed. - - - FINAL ORDER NO. 52484/2014 - Dated:- 27-5-2014 - G. RAGHURAM AND RAKESH KUMAR, JJ. For The Appellant by :- O.P. Aggarwal For The Respondent by :- Ms. Suchitra Sharma ORDER Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member - This is an ROM application filed for rectification of mistake appar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) dismissing the appeal for failure of pre-deposit, Tribunal is authorised to consider the correctness/appropriateness of the earlier order of pre-deposit passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the non-compliance whereof resulted in dismissal of the appeal by that authority. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. O.P. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, sought recall of final order dt. 16.09.2013 of the Tribunal in view of the Tribunal subsequent judgment in the case of Girnar Transformers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and pleaded that in terms of the Provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) except for the orders in respect of the class of cases covered by fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal order dt 16.09.2013. He, therefore, pleaded for recall of the final order dt. 16.09.2013 and passing of appropriate order as deemed fit. 4. Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Jt. CDR, opposing the ROM Application emphasized that there is no mistake apparent from records in the final order dt. 16.09.2013. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) before considering the appeal filed by the appellant on merits, had directed the appellant to deposit certain amount for compliance with the Provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and since the appellant had failed to comply with that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dt. 12.12.12 dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lower Appellate Authority for de-novo consideration, after passing appropriate order as to pre-deposit and while considering appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for failure of pre-deposit, the Tribunal is authorised to consider the correctness appropriateness of the pre-deposit order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the non-compliance whereof resulted in dismissal of the appeal by that authority. In view of the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Girnar Transformers (P.) Ltd. (supra) there is an apparent mistake in the final order dt. 16.09.2013. Accordingly the same is recalled. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has decide this matter without going into the merits of this case, the matter is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
