2009 (1) TMI 649 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT remands appeal, waives pre-deposit, ensures fair consideration

The appeal was remanded by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, as the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously rejected it for being against an ... Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Appealability of letters Issues:1. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) based on grounds of suppression of facts.2. Applicability of cited judgment to the case.3. Decision on waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.Issue 1: Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) based on grounds of suppression of facts.The appellant filed an appeal against a letter from the Superintendent requiring payment of Rs. 14,11,519. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, alleging that the appellant suppressed the fact that the appeal was against an order-in-original already rejected. The appellant's representative argued that duty payment and penalty were made promptly, and the bank guarantee was encashed. The Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on the appeal being against the order-in-original, while it was actually against the letter of the Superintendent. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat the appeal as against the Superintendent's letter, waiving the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F.Issue 2: Applicability of cited judgment to the case.The appellant cited a Tribunal decision in another case to support their argument. However, the Tribunal found that the cited judgment was not relevant to the present case. The communication from the Superintendent in this case followed proper adjudication, unlike the situation in the cited case. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal based on incorrect grounds. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was indeed against the Superintendent's letter and not the order-in-original, leading to the decision to remand the matter for proper consideration.Issue 3: Decision on waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.In light of the confusion regarding the nature of the appeal, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By treating the appeal as against the Superintendent's letter, the Tribunal allowed for the appeal to proceed without the need for pre-deposit. This decision was made to ensure that the appellant's case could be properly considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) without procedural hindrances.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made in the case.