9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no infirmity in the impugned order which has held that since the amount of 7.5% has not been deposited as mandated u/s 35F of the CEA, the Appeal is not maintainable - appeal dismissed being not maintainable. - Central Excise Appeal No. 188 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2017 - A. S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah, with Mr. Jas Sanghvi, i/b PDS Legal for Appellant JUDGMENT ( Per Riyaz I. Chagla J. ) 1. The Appellant by the present Appeal is challenging order dated 15th June 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (in short Appellate Tribunal ) by which the Appeal filed by the Appellant was held to be not maintainable as the Appellant had not depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vide orders dated 24th March 1999 decided the case and held that the invoice price was available and the invoice value was acceptable for DTA sale by 100% EOU. The order held that the Notification did not debar the use of imported consumables provided the other conditions of the said notification was satisfied and the benefit under the said Notification was allowed. The demands of differential Central Excise Duty were accordingly dropped. The department preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 19th June 2000 dismissed the department's Appeal and upheld adjudicating authority's orders-in-original dated 24th March 1999. The department preferred one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50 from the Appellants account to the Commissioner Account, Central Excise towards recovery. The Appellant upon coming to know of the order-in-original requested the Commissioner to send the copy of the said order-in-original. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original passed by the Respondent, the Appellant preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal along with an application for waiver of predeposit. A show cause notice was issued by the Appellate Tribunal to the Appellant informing the Appellant that the transferred amount of ₹ 36,57,904.50 to be treated as the pre-deposit amount for the purpose of the Appeal preferred by the Appellant was insufficient. The Appellant submitted that the transfer which was appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal). We are of the view that the Respondent always has discretion to appropriate the amount recovered against particular dues. We find that the Appellate Tribunal has justifiably considered that for the amount of ₹ 5,15,10,018/- is recoverable for which the concerned Appeal had been filed by the Appellant before the Appellate Tribunal, no amounts had been appropriated. We are also of the view that from the total amount recoverable of ₹ 6,65,65,049/- for the period 2005 till 2010, only a sum of ₹ 36.58 lakhs had been recovered. We find no infirmity in the impugned order which has held that since the amount of 7.5% has not been deposited as mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Appeal is not maintainabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
