Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd vs C.C.E., Jaipur on 2 July, 2010

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi

COURT-IV

SINGLE MEMBER BENCH

 Date of hearing/decision: 2.7.2010

Stay Application No.1132 of 2010 and
Central Excise Appeal No.1079 of 2010-SM

Arising out of the order in appeal No.108(DK)CE/JPR-I/2010 dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur.
 
For Approval and Signature:
		             					 
Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member

1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
 
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes


M/s Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd.		.     		Appellant/applicant
 
Vs.

C.C.E., Jaipur				  	.		      Respondent

Appearance:

Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant for the appellant/applicant Shri S.K. Bhaksar, Authorised Departmental Representative (JDR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member Oral Order No._____________________ Per M. Veeraiyan:
After hearing both sides, I allow the stay petition and take up the appeal itself for final disposal.

2. The conduct of the assessee before the adjudicating authority as recorded by the original authority is as follows:-

 No reply was filed by the assessee within the stipulated period even after personal hearing was fixed on 6.8.08, 11,8.08, 13.8.08, 14.8.08, 7.10.08, 10.10.08, 14.10.08, 17.10.08, 18.12.08 & 9.1.2009 but neither the assessee have appeared for personal hearing nor filed any reply to the SCN. The show cause notice was issued on 25.1.08. The non-cooperation of the appellant in the adjudication proceeding cannot be appreciated.

3. There is some improvement in the conduct of the assessee in the proceeding before Commissioner (Appeals) as they have appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into certain relevant material with the following observations:-

 . I find that they have not enclosed the copy of show cause notice dated 25.1.2008 as well as its annexure to the show cause notice, I am therefore, not in a positon to examine their said contention and hence the same is rejected being unsubstantiated.
He has also observed as under:-
. I find that the appellant had not submitted copy of reply to the show cause notice submitted by them before the adjudicating authority as such I am not in a position to make any observation in regard to said contention. In other words, many of the contentions raised before Commissioner (Appeals) have not been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the said contentions were not raised before the original authority, inasmuch as the appellants have not cooperated in the adjudication proceeding. Perhaps, in the given circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) could have remanded the mater to the original authority. One thing is clear that neither the original authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issues on merit.

4. While the conduct of the appellants cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as the issues have not been considered by both the authorities with reference to the defence submissions, I deem it appropriate to remand the proceeding with the following directions:-

a) The appellants shall file reply within four weeks from today. The appellants shall appear before the original authority at 10 a.m. and or thereafter as directed by the original authority.
b) The original authority also advised to fix personal hearings in a realistic fashion and not at short intervals to show as if he has given 10 hearings.
c) The original authority will consider the issues afresh and issue a speaking order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed.

(M. Veeraiyan) Technical Member scd/ 4