Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Sethia Foods on 24 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(156)ELT395(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present appeal the Revenue wants to club the clearances of M/s. Sethia Foods with the clearances of M/s. Sethia Sweet Products as both the Units belongs to one person. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the Revenue failed to establish that both the factories belongs to one manufacturer.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that both the units are using the same brand name and belongs MILAN group of Industries. Therefore, their clearances which clubbed for calculating the Central Excise duty.
4. We find that the show cause notice was issued only to Sethia Foods Limited. No show cause notice was issued to M/s. Sethia Sweet Products for clubbing their clearances with M/s. Sethia Foods. Principles of natural justice requires that assessee should be put to notice regarding their commission or omission for violating the provisions of Central Excise Act or Rules. In the present case the Revenue wants to club the clearances of M/s. Sethia Sweet Products with M/s. Sethia Foods without issuing any show cause notice to M/s. Sethia Sweets which is not permissible.
5. Further, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that Revenue failed to prove that both the Units belongs to one manufacturer. This finding is not controverted by the Revenue in the present appeal. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.