Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S. Premier Printers, Kerala vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 June, 2001
ORDER
Shri G.A. BRAHMA DEVA, (J)
1. These are six appeals filed by M/s. Premier Printers and others against the impugned order.
2. Sh. Nambiar appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant M/s Premier Printers are manufacturers of duplex cartons. He submitted a show cause notice dated 25.4.97 has been issued to the appellant unit asking to show cause why an amount of Rs. 51,82,033/- should not be demanded from it. he submitted that no show cause (SIC) to any of the alleged non existing units despite the Commissioner having been appraised of the fact that the other u its were in existence. He submitted that sufficient evidence was produced regarding the existence of the other units.
3. On the other hand Sh. Thomas, appearing for revenue submitted that other concerned units were proprietary concerns, and proprietors of those units and partners of M/s Premier Printers. He submitted since the show cause notice has been issued to partners that itself is sufficient compliance for service of notices on other units.
4. Sh. Nambiar replied that D. George, Proprietor of Royal Cortons is not gen partner of the firm and no show cause notice has been issued to him. He contended according to law the department was required to issue notice to all the units since they were separate legal entities. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of OGESH Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1997 (94) ELT 88 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that "Show cause notice issued to only one unit, non issue of show cause notice to other unit amounts to violation of principles of Natural Justice - Show cause notice held bad in law", accordingly the matter was remanded. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SKN Gas Appliances Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2000 (120) ELT 732 (Tribunal).
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. In line with Tribunal's orders referred above, the department was required to issue show cause notice to all other units. Since this has not been done, the order is bad in law. In these circumstances, we are remanding the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority for denovo consideration and the party is at liberty to raise all the other connected issues during the readjudication proceedings. All these appeals are allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)