1999 (11) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mar, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per: J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - Against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 2,08,095/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, the applicants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner on hearing the applicants passed an order on 31-12-98 directing them to make pre-deposit of 50% of the disputed amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal was capable of being dismissed in terms of Sec. 35F. The only lacunae in the order in dismissing the appeal was that the ld. Commissioner omitted to invite the appellant before him for hearing. A similar issue had come up before the Karnataka High Court in the case of M.I. Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [1995 (75) E.L.T. 470 (Kar.)]. The Court observed that dismissal of appeal fo....