Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nirmal Seeds P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/85701/16
- Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. NSK-EXCUS-001-COM-010-15-16 dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
M/s. Nirmal Seeds P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik-I
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sadanandan Khairnar, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, AC(AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 25-07-2016 Date of decision : 25-07-2016 O R D E R No: ..
Per: M.V. Ravindran This matter is listed for removal of defect by the Registry. The same is discharged and appeal is taken up for disposal.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this cse is regarding the challenge by appellant against the impugned order vide which the Adjudicating Authority has extended the time for issuance of show-cause notice.
4. The main ground of the appellant in challenge is that there is violation of principles of natural justice, that the investigation has started six months back and no show-cause notice is issued.
5. We find the argument of appellant are fallacious for more than one reason. Firstly, by the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has only extended the time period for issuance of show-cause notice and has not decided any issue on merits. Secondly, by extending the time period for issuance of show-cause notice, no prejudice is caused to appellant or his case in defence. Thirdly, appellant can respond to the department only if a show-cause notice is issued to him putting forth allegations. In our considered view, if appellants prayer of quashing the impugned order is allowed, it will be frustrating the due process of law that is required in quasi-judicial proceedings.
6. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Impugned order is upheld and appeal is dismissed. (Operative part pronounced in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) //SR
- 3 -
E/85701/16