Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S C.L. Engineering vs Cce & St, Ludhiana on 21 July, 2014
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 : 21/07/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 21/07/2014. Excise Stay Application Nos. 5033, 5315 of 2012 and 55070-55077 and 55270 of 2013 in Appeal Nos. 3980, 4167 of 2012 and 55095-55102 and 55247 of 2013 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 28/Ldh/2012 dated 01/10/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana.] 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 R. Ess Iron and Steel P. Ltd. ] M/s Aps Associates Pvt. Ltd. ] M/s Vee Kay Concast Pvt. Ltd. ] M/s Renny Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. ] M/s Waryam Steel Castings P. Ltd. ] M/s C.L. Engineering ] Appellants Shri Atul Gupta ] M/s Vee Kay Iron and Steel Traders] Shri M.K. Gupta ] M/s Noble Steel Pvt. Ltd. ] M/s Vallabh Steels Ltd. ] Versus CCE & ST, Ludhiana Respondent
Appearance S/Shri K.K. Anand, K.J. Singh, Hemant Bajaj and Vikrant Kackaria, Advocates for the appellants.
Ms. Sweta Bector, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52918-52928/2014 Dated : 21/07/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit in all the matters, we proceed to decide the appeal itself in as much as we find that the impugned order stand passed by the Commissioner in violation of principle of natural justice.
2. It stands recorded in para 3.2 of the order that the Advocate for the appellant appeared for hearing on 31/01/11 and sought more time to file the reply. Again in para 3.10 of the order it stand recorded that in spite of supply of all the relied upon documents, the noticee have failed to submit reply to the show cause notice.
3. When the matter came up earlier on various dates, a direction was given to the Revenue to find out as to whether the reply dated 16/08/10, as contended by the learned Advocate in the appellants stand filed or not. Ms. Sweta Bector, learned DR appearing for the Revenue has placed on record a letter by the Joint Commissioner dated 17/06/14 accepting that interim reply dated 16/08/10 was actually filed in the office on 03/09/10. Learned Advocate clarifies that the said reply is being called as an interim reply as they had requested for supply of the soft copies of the alleged documents retrieved from the computer as also for cross examination of various persons. They reserved their right to file the final reply after the outcome of the cross examination. It is also the grievance of the appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered their request for cross examination and has not given any finding on the same.
4. After appreciating the submissions, we find that admittedly it stand recorded in the impugned order of Commissioner that no reply stand filed by the appellant, whereas we have seen the reply dated 16/08/10, which admittedly stand filed by the appellant in the office on 03/09/10. The said replies are detailed replies denying the allegations as also dealing with various points. There is no discussion in the said order of the Commissioner in reference to the stand taken by the appellants in the said replies. Further, there is also no decision either, at their request for providing soft copies or on their request for cross examination.
5. As such, we are of the view that the impugned order stand passed by the Adjudicating Authority in violation of principles of natural justice. Without expressing our opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for fresh decision, after observing the principles of natural justice. The appellant are within their rights to reiterate their request for supply of soft copies or for cross examination, which request will be dealt by the Commissioner. All the stay petitions and appeals are disposed of, in above manner.
6. We make it clear that we have not dealt with the merits on any appellants appeal and the entire matter is being remanded to the Commissioner.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
4