Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, ... on 4 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(150)ELT88(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. In this case appeal itself is taken up for consideration as the matter lie in a narrow compass.
2. The appellant is manufacturing goods failing under Chapter Heading 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They were procedural irregularities for which notices have given resulting in confirmation of duty amounting to Rs.8277/-+Rs.9596/-+Rs,557/-. The order imposes penalties of amounts of Rs.9596/-+Rs.10557/-.The assessees filed appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)who by his order dt.28.2.2000 in the application filed under section 35f of the Act without giving an opportunity dismissed the appeal.Hence the present appeal.
3. We have been consistently holding that dismissal of the appeal without giving an opportunity is wrong.It is true that application under Section 35F can be considered and decided in the absence of the party, but, that does not mean appeal itself could be decided without hearing the party. We have held so in Entek IRD International (I) Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -II[ 2000 (115) ELT 515 (Tribunal)].
4. Therefore I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for denovo consideration of application filed by the appellant under Section 35F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the appellate authroty shall decided the matter including application under section 35F of the Act, after following principles of natural justice.Stay Petition also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court)