9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge-57 of the appeal memo. This fact may be verified by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in case the deposit has been made, he may proceed to decide the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay. In case, the deposit has not been made, the Commissioner (Appeals) may grant one more opportunity to the appellant to make the pre-deposit. The order dated March 02, 2021 passed by the Commissioner (appeals) is, accordingly, set aside - Appeal allowed. - Defect Diary No. 50750 of 2021 - DEFECT MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NO. _99/2022 - Dated:- 20-5-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P V SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sumeet Ghosh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Radhe Tallo, Authorized Representative for the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and vakalatnama of the appellant. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned order that deal with this aspect are reproduced below: 9. As perused above, it is clear that in terms of Section 35F, the appellants are required to make a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of duty or penalty, as the case may be, before filing the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). However, I find that the Appellant has not deposited the required pre-deposit amount of 7.5% at the time of filing of this appeal. On query by this Appellate Authority, Shri Sumit Ghosh, Advocate, submitted a letter dated 20.02.2021 alongwith an application for condonation of delay (without submitting any authorization/ vakalatnama in his favour) stating that the pre-deposit amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act, 1944 prohibits this Appellate Authority from entertaining any appeal unless a pre-deposit has been made on the terms stated therein. Since the said pre-condition has not been fulfilled by the Appellant, their impugned appeal cannot be considered as complete and the same cannot be entertained. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that when the communication from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received, the appellant sent a reply dated February 20, 2021. The reply is reproduced: Please refer to your letter vide C. No.02-ST/Appl-I/East/2021/46 dated 16.02.2021, wherein you have acknowledged the receipt of the appeal in Form ST-4 on 09.02.2021 but mentioned therein that the condonaton of del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had filed the application but it has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason that it was not under a proper authorization as the vakalatnama was not filed. The vakalatnama was filed by the appellant with the appeal and in such circumstances it would not be necessary for the appellant to file a separate vakalatnama for the application. In any case, if this was an issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have granted some time to rectify this defect. 8. Dr. Radhe Tallo, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department has, however, stated that the appellant had been given sufficient time to make the pre-deposit, but he did not make the pre-deposit as a result of which the Commissioner was lef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
