Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Standard Pencils (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 31 October, 2001
JUDGMENT S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The Stay Application and Appeal arise from communication dated 6.4.99 given by the Additional Commissioner (Tech) on behalf of the Commissioner directing the appellants to pay the differential amount of Rs. 2,21,803/-. As the issue lies in a shot compass, the stay application is allowed and the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. The Ld. Counsel submits that the goods had ben lost in follows during June, 96 and the appellants had filed a letter dated 15.6.96 with the jurisdiction Assistant Commissioner seeking remission of duty on the goods lost in terms of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. He submits that no proceedings have been initiated by issue of show cause notice and they received a letter which is enclosed on which it is stated that the Commissioner has directed them to deposit the differential duty. He submits that the demands cannot be raised without issuing show cause notice and proceedings initiated by the Department and adjudicated by the Commissioner are not sustainable and is violated the principle of Natural Justice. He relied on the Delhi Bench order passed in the case of Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Lucknow reported in the 2001 (132) ELT 323 (T) wherein the Tribunal has taken a view that such communication given by the Additional Commissioner cannot be any stretch of imagination, to be treated as an order of the Commissioner in writing in terms of Rule 49. The Tribunal on due consideration remanded the matter to the original authorities for initiating proper proceedings in terms of the law. The Ld. Counsel submits that in the present case there was no show cause notice. He seeks for setting aside the order in terms of the Tribunal's cited order and the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.
3. On a careful consideration we agree with the Ld. Counsel that the matter is required to be remanded back to the original authorities for de novo consideration in terms of the rulings of Roja Sugar Works (supra) in an identical matter as such an order communicated by Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be an order of the Commissioner in terms of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. Respectfully following the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Roja Sugar Works, we set aside the impugned communication letter of the Additional Commissioner and remand the matter to the authorities for denovo consideration as per law.
4. (order dictated and pronounced in the open court)