2011 (2) TMI 783 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Allowed, Commissioner's Order Overturned for Non-Compliance. Fair Opportunity Emphasized.

M/s. Samtel India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur

M/s. Samtel India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - TMI Issues: Compliance with section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944Comprehensive Analysis:1. Issue: Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The advocate for the appellants argued that the appellants were not given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of non-compliance before the appeal was dismissed. It was contended that had such an opportunity been provided, the appellants could have demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 35F. The advocate referred to RG register extracts showing reversal of credit and cash payments, indicating fulfillment of the amount required to be paid under the adjudicating authority's order.2. Analysis:Upon hearing the advocate for the appellants and the Jt. CDR, the Tribunal observed that the appeal was indeed dismissed for failing to deposit the entire duty within 21 days. The impugned order did not reflect any opportunity given to the appellants to address the non-deposit issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that records concerning RG entries, which allegedly demonstrated compliance with the deposit requirement, were available to the Commissioner (Appeals) before the impugned order was issued. In light of the precedent set by the Tribunal in the Uniworth Textiles Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order should be set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for proper consideration in accordance with the law. The appellants were granted liberty to present necessary records related to the RG entries to establish compliance with the order from the stay application before the lower appellate authority.3. Conclusion:Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings as directed. The decision highlighted the importance of providing parties with a fair opportunity to address issues of non-compliance before dismissing appeals based on such grounds. The judgment emphasized the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in adjudicating matters under the Central Excise Act, 1944.