Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Mo Engineering Pvt. Limited, New ... vs Cce, New Delhi on 27 February, 2001
ORDER
P.G Chacko
1. After carefully examining the records and hearing both sides, I feel that this appeal itself requires to be disposed at this state. Therefore, I allow this application and take up the appeal for final disposal.
2. It appears that both the lower authorities have passed their respective orders without personal hearing of the party. Whether sufficient opportunity was given to the party for personal hearing is not relevant for the present. It is, however, noted on the face of the record that, in the appeal filed by the party before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing certain Modvat credit and imposing penalty, they had raised a specific ground that the order of adjudication passed in 1999 in adjudication of show-cause notice issued in 1993 was not liable to be sustained. The appellants also cited case law in support of the said ground. But ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the said ground at all. The lower appellate authority ought to have considered all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, particularly when the party was not available for personal hearing. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be denial of justice to the assessees by the lower appellate authority. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh speaking order on all the grounds raised by the appellants, after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to them.
3. The appeal stands allowed by way of remand as above.
4. It is further made clear that the Departmental authorities shall refrain from enforcing the Assistant Commissioner's order during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)