VIP INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not consider that the fact that counsel for the appellant is busy before a part heard matter in Delhi constitute sufficient ground for adjournment, particularly when the matter was last adjourned at the request and the date made known to him. We have therefore decided to proceed with the matter and, after considering the stay application decided to take up the appeal itself with consent of the departmental representative.

(2.) THE appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed before him by the present appellant before us against an order of the Asst. Commissioner. The Commissioner's order of dismissal is on the ground that the appellant before him did not deposit the entire duty and penalty that it was required to deposit, in terms of Section 35F of the Act, and while he asked it to deposit in his stay order.

(3.) WE are reluctant to go into the merits of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore an order dismissing an appeal for default is not likely to be interfered with. In the present case, we are compelled to find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) asking for deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty is entirely unsustainable for the reason that it is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not applied his mind to the issue at all.