ORDER 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Lal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.A. Prusty learned counsel for the Revenue. In the present writ application, challenge has been made by the petitioner to an order dated 14-5-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata in Excise Appeal No. E/A/270/2009 wherein the following order has been passed: None present for the appellants. Heard the ld. A.R. for the Department. We find that vide this. Tribunal's Order No. S-189/Kol/2012 dated 6-3-2012, the appellants were directed to make pre-deposit 25% of duty within eight weeks and to report compliance on 10-5-2012. The appellants did not report the compliance. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, xx xx xx Further challenge has also been made to an order dated 6-9-2012 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. E/M/211/2012 arising out of Excise Appeal No. E/A/270/2009 (Annexure-1), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-company for restoration of the appeal came to be dismissed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner advances various contentions both on merit as well as alleging non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Insofar as the impugned order dated 14-5-2012 is concerned, it is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that, none was present on behalf of the appellant on the said date but, the counsel's absence was on account of the fact that on the earlier date which had been fixed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was present through his counsel but, purportedly on account of the Tribunal not having held its sitting on the said date the matter was adjourned. It is further claimed that the petitioner had no knowledge/intimation of the subsequent date, on which date, the appeal stood dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further asserts that the petitioner had complied with the requirements of pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal by order dated 6-3-2012, by way of reversal of credit entry in the Entry Book under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 at its Unit registered at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In order to establish such contention, Annexure-4 has been filed, which is a copy of the entries made in the "Entry Book of Duty Credit Register" which indicates that on 1st May, 2012, a sum of Rs. In order to establish such contention, Annexure-4 has been filed, which is a copy of the entries made in the "Entry Book of Duty Credit Register" which indicates that on 1st May, 2012, a sum of Rs. 9,27,639.00 had been reversed in the said duty credit book, which in effect tantamounted to deposit of excise duty. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on various judgments in support of his contentions and in particular, the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Victory Impex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, where the Division Bench came to held that the duty levied u/s 3 of the Act can be discharged by way of payment in cash or it may be paid by utilizing CENVAT Credit. Therefore, it is asserted that the reversal of CENVAT credit by the petitioner-company, at its Ghaziabad Unit, amounted to compliance of the directions of the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order by which the petitioner's appeal came to be rejected under Annexure-6 and the rejection of the petitioner's application for restoration of appeal impugned under Annexure-11 ought to be quashed. The petitioner further laid stress on the provision of Rule 12A(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as well as Rule 2(ea) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in order to contend that, such reversal of credit though by a separate unit of the company located at Ghaziabad, is permissible. Rule 2(ea) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 12A(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are quoted hereinbelow: Rule 2(ea) - "large tax payer" means a person who,- (i) has one or more registered premises under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); or (ii) has one or more registered premises under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994); and is an assessee under the income tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), who holds a Permanent Account Number issued u/s 139A of the said Act, and satisfies the conditions and observes the procedures as notified by the Central Government in this regard. Rule 12A(4) - A large tax payer may transfer, CENVAT credit available with one of his registered manufacturing premises or premises providing taxable service to his other such registered premises by,- (i) making an entry for such transfer in the record maintained under rule 9; (ii) issuing a transfer challan containing registration number, name and address of the registered premises transferring the credit as well as receiving such credit, the amount of credit transferred and the particulars of such entry as mentioned in clause (i), and such recipient premises can take CENVAT credit on the basis of such transfer challan as mentioned in clause (ii): 4. Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, strenuously contends that the petitioner's Unit with which the present case is concerned, is located in the State of Odisha under separate Commissionerate and the claim of having reversed for. Cenvat credit in separate Commissionerate, is not permissible either under Central Excise Rules, 2002 or Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A part from the same, learned counsel for the Revenue asserts that the petitioner having failed to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit as directed by Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in view of the non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal had no other alternative other than to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is further asserted by Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the Revenue that though the petitioner-company (M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited) has two factories are at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the other at Sambalpur in the State of Odisha, it has been granted separate registrations by the Excise Authorities. 5. Mr. Lal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Kolkata in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol-II and Another Vs. 5. Mr. Lal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Kolkata in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol-II and Another Vs. Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Ltd. and Others, which came to conclude that "before any order of dismissal is passed reasonable and meaningful opportunities ought to be given, without the same being afforded if the appeal is dismissed it would amount to injustice for an assessee should be given a chance as to make pre-deposit or to take decision with regard to proceeding of the appeal." The Division Bench also came to hold that "the proper course and procedure of the Tribunal would be wherever pre-deposit is required either the same should be dispensed with fully or partially on application being made. If such dispensation is not allowed then the Tribunal would issue a show cause before taking up the appeal for dismissal on account of failure of pre-deposit." 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the revenue and on perusing the impugned orders under Annexures-6 & 11, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be best met if the matter is remitted back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for considering the questions as to whether its direction for pre-deposit has been complied with or not. We are of the aforesaid view since clearly the appellant had not been represented before the Tribunal, on the date on which Annexure-6 was passed. The order under Annexure-11 also indicates that the appellant has taken a positive stand that the requirement of pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal had been complied with, by way of debiting the amount from Cenvat Credit Account of its Ghaziabad factory and by such an act the order of the Tribunal for pre-deposit had been complied with. Such a contention is to be determined by the Tribunal and cannot be based upon the mere declaration by the petitioner. Hence, it is necessary to remit the matter back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for determination of such an issue. 7. Such a contention is to be determined by the Tribunal and cannot be based upon the mere declaration by the petitioner. Hence, it is necessary to remit the matter back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for determination of such an issue. 7. Therefore, the orders dated 14-5-2012 and 6-9-2012 under Annexures-6 and 11 respectively are quashed and the matter stands remitted back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata for determination. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the plea of the petitioner and the Tribunal is free to reach its conclusion in accordance with law. In order to hasten the determination of such question, the petitioner is directed to appear (through counsel) before the Tribunal with a certified copy of this order on or before 4th February, 2013 and the Tribunal may fix an appropriate date for consideration of the aforesaid issues. Till such determination takes place, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Misc. Case No. 16687 of 2012 In view of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 19355 of 2012, the present Misc. case is disposed of.