Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Shri Laxmi Iron & Steel Re-Rolling ... vs Cce Jaipur on 3 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(135)ELT1027(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shree Laxmi Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills two issues are for reconsideration. The first issue relates to the nature of furnace whether it was a batch type or was a pusher type. The second issue relates to the adjudication of four show cause notices dated 29.10.98, 29.10.98, 16.4.99 and 7.10.99 which the Commissioner as a adjudicating authority had also disposed of in terms of his order dated 29.10.99. The matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under their order dated 11.8.99 has remanded the matter with directions that the factory premises of the appellants should be personally visited by the adjudicating authority alongwith the technical experts and then a considered view should be taken and speaking appealable order be passed. It is in pursuance of these directions of the Tribunal dated 11.8.99 that the adjudicating authority alongwith two technical experts from the National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab visited the unit of the appellants on 28.9.99. Therefore, after following the principles of natural justice he had passed a speaking appealable order in which a view had been taken that the furnace was a pusher type under Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Shri Sidharth Sen, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that there is a difference between pusher type furnace and batch type furnace and that the appellants had earlier contested the findings although with regard to the present adjudication order they had not sought any personal hearing. He further submits that when show cause notices had been issued by the jurisdictional authorities the appellants had to be given opportunity to reply and then order should be passed taking into consideration all their submissions. In the present case it has not been done. Without giving an opportunity to reply to the show cause notices and without any opportunity of personal hearing the view taken in the adjudication order had been made applicable to the show cause notices also. He prays for remand of the matter in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned.
2. Shri M.M.Dubey, DR submits that the adjudicating authority had passed a detailed speaking order and had complied with the directions of the Tribunal in the remand matter dated 11.8.99. The matter has been discussed in the light of the view of the technical experts and with reference to the various technical books on the subject as discussed in para 10 of the order.
3. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record in so far as the findings of the adjudicating authority that the furnace was a pusher type, we do not find any material on record to disturb the same. He has gone into the detailed working of the unit and had taken help from the technical experts and had analysed with reference to the technical books. We therefore, confirm that part of the order which relates to the fixation of the annual capacity and the demand of duty as in paras (i) and (ii) of the order.
4. As regards the order in para (iii), we consider that when show-cause-cum-demand notice had been issued it was necessary that the appellants should have been given opportunity to reply to the same and then the matter should have been adjudicated after following the principles of natural justice. Thus in so far as the applicability of this order to the four show cause notices mentioned in para (iii) of the order are concerned, the matter is sent back to the jurisdictional authorities for passing speaking appealable order after hearing the appellants. The appellants are also given opportunity to reply to the show cause notices to the concerned authorities as mentioned in the show cause notices. Thus on this limited point the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for de novo consideration as per the above observations.
5. The appeal is thus partly allowed as referred to above. Ordered accordingly.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.