Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi I on 8 April, 2013
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 : 08/04/2013. DATE OF DECISION : 08/04/2013. Excise Stay Application No. 2145 of 2010 in Appeal No. 2271 of 2010 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 61/PKJ/CCE/Adjn./2009 dated 10/12/2009 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjn.), New Delhi.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, 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/s Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Delhi I Respondent
Appearance Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Mathur, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 56047/2013 Dated : 08/04/2013 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides, as we find that the impugned order stand passed by the lower authorities in gross violation of principle of natural justice as also on the ground that the issue involved is covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal.
2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is a franchise holder of aerated water for and on behalf of their principal M/s Parle Exports Ltd. (PEL) and M/s Parle International Ltd. (PIL). A case stand made out by Revenue on the ground that while comparing the sale figures of the aerated waters as reflected in the records of the principal brand name owner, with the RG-1 records of the appellant, the appellant has manufactured and cleared clandestinely the differential amount of bottles/crates. It is seen that based upon the figures picked from the brand name owners records, identical matters were made against other aerated water manufacturers. Some of the said matters travelled upto Tribunal and vide following decision, the confirmation of demands were set aside.
(i) CCE, Meerut vs. MOON Beverages Ltd. 2002 (150) E.L.T. 976 (Tri. Del.)
(ii) CCE, Meerut vs. Coolade Beverages (P) Ltd. 1999 (34) R.L.T. 190 (CEGAT)
(iii) Chandigarh Bottling Co. vs. CCE, Delhi I vide final Order No. 745/2011 EX dated 12/08/2011 [vide Stay Order No. 2881/2009 in Appeal No. 2794/2009]
3. The impugned order in the present case, is replica of the order passed by the Commissioner in the case of Chandigarh Bottling Co. vs. CCE, Delhi I, which stand set aside by Tribunal. Apart from above, we note that the show cause notice was not served upon the appellant in as much as their unit was closed and licence was surrendered in the year 1999. The Adjudicating Authority has also not given any show cause notice number or date in the present impugned order. Similarly, the hearing notices were also not received by the appellant and no reply stand filed by them. It seems that on account of closure of the factory, the said communications were not being received by the appellant. As per the learned advocate, even the impugned order was not received, which was procured by them subsequently.
4. In view of the above, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision in the light of the declarations of law in the above referred decisions. Needless to say that the appellant would be served upon copy of the show cause notice alongwith other relevant documents and effective opportunity of personal hearing would be afforded before the matter is re-decided. The appellant would also place on record the correct address for communications.
5. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of, in above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3