Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the earlier dismissal of the Appellant's appeal was purely procedural for failure to make the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit and not a merits adjudication; consequently the adjudicating Authority was not functus officio upon subsequent deposit. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi dated 17.01.2024 is set aside, the appeal is restored to its original number and remitted for adjudication on merits. The decision clarifies that procedural non-compliance resulting in non-entertainment does not extinguish the Appellant's substantive right to appellate adjudication once procedural requirements are satisfied.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the earlier dismissal of the Appellant's appeal was purely procedural for failure to make the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit and not a merits adjudication; consequently the adjudicating Authority was not functus officio upon subsequent deposit. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi dated 17.01.2024 is set aside, the appeal is restored to its original number and remitted for adjudication on merits. The decision clarifies that procedural non-compliance resulting in non-entertainment does not extinguish the Appellant's substantive right to appellate adjudication once procedural requirements are satisfied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.