Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Sipani Automobiles Ltd. (Now Maestro ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 December, 2001
JUDGMENT
G.A. Brahma Deva
1. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However there was a request for an adjournment. On going through the matter I find that the matter itself can be disposed of even in their absence. Accordingly proceed to pass this order after hearing learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
2. Shri Narasimha Murthy, JDR submitted that the issue relates to Modvat credit. The appellants availed Modvat credit on strength of one extra copy and one original copy of the invoice. He also submitted that they did not produce any evidence establishing their contention that the duplicate copy of the invoice was lost in transit.
3. On a careful consideration and going through the impugned order I am of view that the matter requires to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority. I find that much water has flown since passing of the impugned order by the authority below by developing the case law on procedural lapse. The Tribunal has been constantly taking the view that procedural lapses if any should not come in the way of denial of substantial justice. In the view I have taken I am remanding the matter to concerned adjucating authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The appellants may produce evidence to substantiate their claims during the re-adjudication proceedings. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)