9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 53183 of 2018 (SM) - Final Order No. 50513/2019 - Dated:- 22-3-2019 - Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per. C.L. MAHAR :- The facts in brief are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture and export of poly propylene, woven fabrics and sacks, jumbo bags falling under Chapter 63 of Central Excise Act, 1985, that during September October 2013-2014 the appellants had cleared 63,000 + 90,000 pieces of woven sacks valued at ₹ 3,47,000/- and ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also been imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 and a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- has also been imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also important to note that a penalty of ₹ 2,55,920/- has also been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The appellant have approached the Commissioner (Appeals) against order-in-original and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 01/09/2017 has rejected the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the proper pre-deposit as required under Section 35 F (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been made by the appellant. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under :- As regards to mandatory pre-depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y been deposited by the appellant. The amount of the penalty of ₹ 2,55,920/- if readwith the show cause notice has actually been confirmed against M/s Neo Corp International Ltd. which is a notice No. 2 to the show cause notice and who is not before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, this amount cannot be included in the amount of penalties imposed against the appellant themselves for determination of mandatory pre-deposit amount. 5. In view of above facts, I feel that a proper compliance of Section 35 F (i) regarding pre-deposit have already been complied with by the appellant and, therefore, I set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remand back the same to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
