TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision mandatory in nature - the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the aforesaid provision vide the Order dated 3rd August, 2021. Simultaneously, it is also apparent on record that the appellant made the compliance of the said provision, subsequently. However, still the opportunity of being heard for disposing his appeal on merits was not considered by Commissioner (Appeals). The letter bearing No.2065/2021 dated 27.07.2021 as is found annexed on the record of this appeal shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not re-considered the issue despite that non-compliance of Section 35F was a procedural lapse and that the same has been made good by the appellant - In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be pending with the Asst. Commissioner was also mentioned to be pending refund with Asstt. Commissioner, CGST, MCI Division, Nehru Place, Delhi on account of second appeal to have been allowed by CESTAT, Delhi. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the said request and dismissed the appeal. It is, thereafter, the appellant had made the deposit of ₹ 11,400/- of pre-deposit on 27 August, 2021. The challan as annexed with the appeal record is impressed upon. Ld. Counsel submitted that after making compliance of section 35 F that another appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) but the same has also not been considered and the appellant was informed vide a letter that his appeal against the Order in Original bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, still the opportunity of being heard for disposing his appeal on merits was not considered by Commissioner (Appeals). The letter bearing No.2065/2021 dated 27.07.2021 as is found annexed on the record of this appeal shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not re-considered the issue despite that non-compliance of Section 35F was a procedural lapse and that the same has been made good by the appellant. Law has been settled that procedural lapses shall not take away the substantial justice. Otherwise also it is the fundamental principle of natural justice that opportunity of hearing be provided to the aggrieved and disposal of a lis should always preferably be on merits. In the present case, since the procedural lapse / the defect st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
