JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Raghavan as well as Mr. Mukesh Panda, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Choudhury Satyajit Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department-Respondent. 2. Mr. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 5-5-2014 under Annexure 8, filed an appeal before the Learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was registered as Appeal No. ST-76124 of 2014. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner had also filed Stay Petition No. 76269 of 2014. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that the Tribunal had fixed the stay petition for consideration and on various dates, the Tribunal heard the appellant as well as the counsel for the Revenue on the stay application and the petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned order dated 23-12-2015 whereby the Tribunal disposed of the appeal as well as the stay petition. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in law in disposing of the statutory appeal since no effective hearing of appeal had taken place before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant raises various questions of law, which need not be noted here in view of the nature of the order that we intend to pass in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though the petitioner-company has filed ROM petition (rectification petition) before the Tribunal, which remains pending as on date, he undertakes to withdraw the ROM petition, if this Court directs consideration of the appeal on its own merit. 3. Mr. Choudhury Satyajit Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise Department submits that the Tribunal very often while taking up the stay application also takes up the appeal for disposal on merits provided the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties are taken. He also admits that in the impugned order, no such consent appears to have been recorded. 4. He also admits that in the impugned order, no such consent appears to have been recorded. 4. In consideration of the aforesaid facts, without entering into any question on merits of the lis in question, we are of the considered view that principle of natural justice have not been complied with inasmuch as evidence on record indicates that the Tribunal had fixed the stay petition for hearing from day-to-day and instead of passing any order on the stay application proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit without affording the appellant proper opportunity to address the Tribunal on merit. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we allow the present OTAPL by setting aside the impugned order dated 23-12-2015 under Annexure 2. Apart from the aforesaid direction, we are of the considered view that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 2.00 crores (by way of reversal Cenvat credit) within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be accepted as pre-deposit for the purpose of entertaining the said appeal and the appeal may be heard and disposed of expeditiously on its own merits. It is further observed herein that the Tribunal shall do well to proceed with the matter without in any manner being influenced by its earlier order which is quashed herein or by any observation made by us in the present order. The appellant shall act in terms of the order relating to deposit as noted herein above. 6. With such aforesaid observation and direction, the OTAPL is disposed of. 7. A free copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel appearing for Central Excise Department. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Final Result : Allowed