2012 (5) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 as they have failed to make the pre-deposit as per the stay order dated 25-7-2011 by the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that in the stay order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed a speaking order for asking for pre-deposit, therefore, the said order is in violation of the Board's Circular No. 524/20/2000-CX., dated 6-4-2000. In support of his contention, he also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CEAT Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 336 (Bom.) and Velcord Textiles v. Union of India reported in 1999....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....covery interest is appropriated by the Original authority. Moreover, the appellant did not submit any evidence to prove that the pre-deposit under Section 35F would cause any financial hardship. Therefore, I find that the main appeal cannot be considered for decision until the appellant pays the amount so ordered to be recovered vide the impugned order. Therefore, the appellant is hereby directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,24,300/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Three Hundred only) along with interest due thereon before 10-8-2011 failing which the main Appeal No. 102/2011 would be liable for dismissal due to non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax throug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ithout application of mind. During the last six months, we had to set aside a number of such orders for the very same reason. The Commissioner (Appeals) have been directed by this court to apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before passing orders on the application for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit and to pass reasoned order. We are constrained to note that despite of such repeated observations, things have not improved." 8. Going through the stay order dated 25-7-2011 and the Board's Circular as stated hereinabove along with observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the above cited cases, wherein it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with stay application has not pa....