9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appreciating the facts and without commenting as to why pre-deposit is required in such a situation, directed the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty imposed on them - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Relying, on the case law in the case of VAMAN KUNDER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI [ 2008 (9) TMI 324 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] , it is held that the appeal against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Vinay Ansurkar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal along an application for stay against the impugned order wherein the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue at the outset rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.-Mumbai), I hold that the appeal against the impugned order is maintainable before this Tribunal. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned AR is turned down. 5. Now I am proceeding to hear the appeal. As the issue involved in the matter is in a narrow compass therefore, the stay and appeal are taken up together for disposal as agreed by both the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 7. Considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the records. 8. I observed that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) s order directing the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty, has not been passed on merits therefore, the order is not correct. Consequently, the final order dismissing the appeal is also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
