SURAJ STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. M/s R J Oza, R C Jani and Mr M R Shah waive service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, these matters are taken up, heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) Petitioners, by orders passed by adjudicating authority, were required to pay different amounts from Rs.4,26,000.00 to Rs.8,60,000. The orders were passed in the month of July and August, 1995. Against the aforesaid orders, the Appeals were preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad. The Appellate Authority, before considering the appeals on merit, found that the appellants did not comply with the directions whereby they were directed to deposit the amounts by 15.10.1997. They failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which are mandatory. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeals could not be maintained, entertained and heard on merit. In the opinion of the Commissioner (Appeals), as the conditions were not fulfilled, the Appeals were required to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Reading para 6 of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), on 24.10.1997, it is clear that the applications for stay were submitted and direction was given to deposit the amounts by 15.10.1997.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the orders of dismissal of appeals, nine appeals were preferred before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'), West Regional Bench at Bombay. After considering the facts in short, the Tribunal pointed out that in all these cases, the appellants failed to comply with the directions of pre-deposit of the duty demanded in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed all the appeals. It appears that the attention of the Tribunal was invited wherein similar situation was required to be considered in 25 appeals. In those group of appeals, before the Tribunal, it was given to understand to the Tribunal that they have made pre=deposit which has been noted in the annexures to the orders. It appears that as the amount as required to be deposited, namely; pre-deposit, was already deposited, the Tribunal issued directions to the Comissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeals on merit, on their showing that they have deposited the amount. Thus, the statement was made before the Tribunal that the amount has been paid, yet for the sake of precaution, the Tribunal stated that only on showing that they have pre-deposited the amount, the appeals will be entertained.