State Bank of India Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Summary: The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, arose from the Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Ludhiana. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected State Bank of India’s appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that the appellant had not made the mandatory pre-deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Before the CESTAT, the learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had rejected it solely because of non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. It was further submitted that the appellant had subsequently complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. On that basis, the appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue did not object to the matter being remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The CESTAT noted that the appellant had now complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the underlying appeal on merits. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered it a fit case for remand. The mandatory pre-deposit provisions applicable to Central Excise and Service Tax appeals have also been the subject of CBIC clarification, including the prescribed procedure for such deposits. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Accordingly, the CESTAT set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal further directed that a reasoned order be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of its order.
Thus, the CESTAT did not decide the underlying dispute in favour of State Bank of India on merits. The relief granted was procedural and consisted of restoration of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits after the appellant had complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The appeal was accordingly allowed by way of remand.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant as non-maintainable on the ground that the appellant had not made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
3. The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits and rejected the appeal solely due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that the appellant has now complied with the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Chartered Accountant, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.
4. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue has no objection to remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.
5. In view of the fact that the appellant has now complied with the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits, we find it a fit case to remand the matter. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who is directed to decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. A reasoned order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
