Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. M.P. State Cooperative Oil Seed ... vs Cce, Bhopal on 9 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT128(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Lala Ram
1. Shri O.J. Chacko, Advocate submits that the main ground taken by the appellants in their grounds of appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was of limitation. The appellate authority had not discussed the same. Without going into the merits of the case, the appeal has been disposed of by the following order:
"6. It is clear from the facts narrated above that the appellants have absolutely no defence for their stand and that the action of the adjudicating officer in confirming the demand is legally correct and sustainable." The ld. Advocate also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in his order that the date of hearing was fixed on 6.7.2000 while in fact the hearing was fixed on 10.07.2000 and that the appellants have prayed for adjournment on 10.07.2000 on the ground that their Central Excise Consultant was not available and this communication was received in the office of the Commissioner on 10.07.2000. He submits that no opportunity was given to the appellants to explain their case.
2. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted the issues involved and had passed order based on those facts. As regards the limitation, he submits that this point finds no mention in the discussion by the appellate authority.
3. I find that it is a very old matter and the demand relates to the year 1985. The issue involved is that of oil cess and the appellants is a State Cooperative Organisation of Madhya Pradesh Government. The matter is pending for considerable time but as the order does not deal with the relevant aspects, it is not possible for the Tribunal to take a final view and reluctantly, the matter has to be remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, who should provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the appellants, dealing with their contentions particularly with regard to limitation and then pass a speaking appealable order at the earliest. Needless to say that unless all the issues are discussed, it is very difficult for appellate forum to dispose of the matter on merits. It leads to delays. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with the above observations.
4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
5. Order dictated a pronounced in the Open Court on 9.1.2001.