Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs Cce, Mangalore on 20 December, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing:20/12/2012
Date of decision:20/12/2012
Application No.E/Stay/528/2012
Appeal No.E/817/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.20/2012 dt. 12/01/2012
passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. Mathew John, Member(Technical)
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?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Mangalore
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. Jimmy F. Pochkhanawalla, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. Mathew John, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: P.G. Chacko] This application seeks waiver and stay in respect of an amount of duty shown as Rs.1,90,00,347/-. On a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, we have found a fit case for summary disposal. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal.
2. The appellant, way back in October 2011, received a letter from their Central Excise Range Officer, wherein the aforesaid amount was indicated as short-paid duty for the period from April 2008 to March 2011 and also party was directed the party to pay up the duty with interest immediately. The letter also advised the party to refrain from claiming undue benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.4/2006 CE dt. 01/03/2006 in the current financial year (2011-12). Aggrieved, the party approached the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appellate authority, without caring to give the appellant any opportunity of being heard, passed the impugned order wherein it was held that the Superintendents letter dt. 18/10/2011 was neither a decision nor an order passed under the Act by a Central Excise officer. The appeal filed against the Superintendents demand of duty thus came to be rejected as not-maintainable. Hence the appeal before us.
3. Obviously, the preliminary question arising for consideration is whether the impugned order was passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. After hearing both sides, we find no dispute in this connection. The party was not offered any opportunity of being heard. However, their appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. They ought to have been personally heard on the preliminary issue of maintainability before such a decision was taken. Thus the impugned proceedings are vitiated by blatant negation of natural justice. On this sole ground, we set aside this impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner(Appeals) to deal with the appeal filed against the Superintendents letter dt. 18/10/2011, in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the appellant on all issues that could be arising in the appeal which they filed before the Commissioner(Appeals). The stay application also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) (MATHEW JOHN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 4