Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 March, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/25163/2013 in ST/25205/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/25205/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 36/2009 dated 16/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Adjudication), Visakhapatnam-II ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, 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? No 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 Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd D.No.70-15-45/3, Balaji Nilayam, Suresh Nagar, NFCL Road, Near New RTO Office, Kakinada 533 003 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II Central Excise Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Sajan Narain, Advocate 98, Babar Road, Opp: Lalit Hotel, New Delhi - 110 001 For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 30/03/2015 Date of Decision: 30/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20899 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides we find that the present impugned order stands passed by the Commissioner in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as earlier hearing fixed by the Commissioner was granted adjournment for a period of one month to file detailed reply. However as the appellant is situated outside India the reply could not be filed by assessee within the time granted and thereafter the Commissioner by observing so passed impugned order without any further grant of personal hearing.
2. In view of the above, we are convinced that the impugned order requires to be set aside and matter needs to go back. Accordingly after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for decide on merits. The appellants undertake to file reply within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. Needless to say the appellant shall be given an opportunity to present their case in person. The stay application as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss