9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reekumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The stay application and appeal arises from OIA No. 25/2000 (H-II) C.E., dated 1-5-2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for non-deposit of penalty amount as directed by his interim order in terms of proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that co-notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no penalty liability on the co-noticee. He therefore submits that they have made out a very strong case for recovery of pre-deposit. He submits that as the issue is covered, appeal itself could allowed in terms of Board's Circular cited by him and the Tribunal's judgments. 3. Ld. SDR points out that the Commissioner has given reasons as to why Board Circular is not applicable. He sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has only held that the circular is distinguishable and not given any finding on the Tribunal judgment on this point. In that view of the matter, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of its recovery. We take up the appeal and remand the case to Commissioner (Appeals) with direction to hear the matter on merits without insisting on pre-deposit and consider all the grounds raised with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
