AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 222 wordsP.K. Choudhary, Member (J)
Heard the learned Departmental Authorized Representative and perused the written submission as filed by the learned Advocate for the Appellant. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the same on the ground that the Appellant was required to deposit Rs.8,745/- (i.e. 7.5% of Rs.1,16.600/-). However, Appellant deposited Rs.8,700/- only on 14.05.2019. Therefore, the appeal filed before the first Appellate Authority got dismissed for shortage of Rs.45/- in compliance to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944. I find that the Appellant subsequently deposited Rs.45/- on 15.09.2019 and has also deposited 2.5% i.e. Rs.2,915/- on 15.09.2019 for filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the same for non-compliance of pre-deposit under Section 35F, I find it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without further going into the aspect of pre-deposit. Needless to mention all issues are kept open Appellant would not seek refund of the pre-deposit till the appeal is finally decided by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner (Appeals).