Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vaspar Concepts Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 6 August, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/217/2005-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 483-2002 dated 29/10/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Vaspar Concepts Pvt. Ltd No.14, Cornwell Cross Road, Langford Gardens BANGALORE - 560025 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-i NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri K.PARAMESWARAN, ADV FLAT NO.101, SURAJ SADAN, NO.23, II CROSS, (RAMACHANDRA ROAD) GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE -560 009 For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 06/08/2015 Date of Decision: 06/08/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21762 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The dispute involved in the appeal relates to classification of the awnings manufactured by the assessee. The appellants have claimed the classification of the same under the heading 63.06, which classification, for the earlier period, was also approved by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently the Revenue by entertaining a view that the same falls under the sub-heading 94.05, initiated proceedings against the appellant.
2. As per the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, though the proceedings were pending before the original adjudicating authority for a long period, but a hearing notice was served upon them by way of a telephonic call and they prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the advocate is held up at Chennai and as such they are not in a position to attend the hearing. No further date of hearing was given to them and the original adjudicating authority decided the issue by an ex parte order.
3. Though the appellant made above grievance before the Commissioner(Appeals), he did not remand the matter by observing that he has no power to remand.
4. Without going into legal issue as to whether Commissioner(Appeals) has power to remand or not, we find that admittedly the order of the original adjudicating authority is without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. On this ground itself, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-decision. Needless to say that the appellant would be afforded an opportunity to put forth their defence.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER raja 3