TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (6) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the appellant. 2. The learned Counsel, Shri K. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant, contended before me that the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector without granting a personal hearing to the appellant, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, he contended that the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the pre-deposit is not made, is also not correct. In this connection, he relied on the following decision reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 605 in the case of Ashoka Rubber Products v. Collector of Central Excise. It was held in that decision that pre-deposit is not a condition precedent for filing of appeal. Appeal, once filed, is disposable only on merits. Their Lordships were dealing wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C.E.G.A.T. Procedure Rules, 1982, by producing three additional documents which are as follows : (all are xerox copies) (i) A certificate issued by the Manager of United Bank of India; (ii) 6-Year National Savings Certificate of Rs. 5,000.00 issued by the Postal Department; (iii) Another 6-Year National Savings Certificate issued by the same Department. The abovesaid documents are also material for the purpose of deciding this case. In such circumstances, it was his contention that even if the appeal is going to be remanded it may be remanded to the original authority who alone will be in a position to consider the request of the appellant for cross-examination of the witnes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iding this case. 5. I have considered the submissions of both sides. In view of the decisions relied on by the learned Consultant, Shri Chatterjee I find that the documents said to be produced, are material ones which are required for a just adjudication of the case. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed and the documents are allowed to be produced. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is seen that the learned Collector (Appeals) decided the matter by dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the appellant had not deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 towards the penalty as ordered by him. In the first instance, the appellant was not heard before passing an order to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,000.00. But in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taken from him are not voluntary also should be considered. He should also consider the further documents which the appellant may produce before him, which are three documents produced before this Tribunal along with this Miscellaneous Application No. 124/92. He should grant a personal hearing to the appellant and record the arguments of the appellant and the matter should be disposed of by passing a speaking order and observing the principles of natural justice. However, Shri Chatterjee had contended that even if the penalty is not deposited the appeal has got to be disposed of and the stay is only with respect to the recovery of the penalty. He had relied on certain decisions mentioned above to justify this argument. 6. But in view o....