Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/ R.P. Casting Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur I on 30 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 30/09/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 30/09/2016. Excise Appeal No. 1890 of 2008 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 10/99 dated 01/04/1999 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, 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? 2. Whether it would 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? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/ R.P. Casting Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Jaipur I Respondent
Appearance Ms. Mehat Gupta, Advocate (proxy counsel) for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53933/2016 Dated : 30/09/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
When the matter is called none was present on behalf of appellant. However, Ms. Mehak Gupta, proxy Counsel submits that the main Counsel could not appear due to the personal difficulties.
2. We have perused the appeal records and taken the assistance of learned AR. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots liable to Central Excise duty. The duty liability on the appellants are to be fixed in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act 1944 readwith Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order confirmed a demand of Rs. 41,12,256/- based on the annual capacity of the furnace operated by the appellant. The confirmation of present demand is based on order dated 20/11/98 wherein the appellants annual capacity was finalized. We note that the appellant did not provide reply to the notice. A reply dated 17/9/98 was unsigned and hence ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. It is seen that no personal hearing also has been conducted in the present case. From the impugned order it is clear that the same has been issued ex-parte. The appellants in their appeal pleaded that the said order may be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. We find that there is no reasoned order examining all the contents of the appellant for us to consider in this appeal. As such, we find that the original order has to be set aside for a fresh decision after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to present their side of the case. Since the matter is more than 18 years old, we expect the Adjudicating Authority will take speedy action in denovo adjudication preferably within three months of receipt of this order. The appellant has to cooperate in the denovo adjudication without seeking adjournment. With these directions, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3