Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jaipur-Ii vs M/S. Anna Petrochem Pvt. Ltd on 13 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III E/STAY/2265 OF 2008-SM EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2008-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 124(DK)CE/JPR-II/2008 dated 26.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 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 Departmental authorities? CCE, Jaipur-II Appellant Vs. M/s. Anna Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Respondents
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Saini, D.R. for the Revenue;
Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), Date of hearing/decision: 13th May, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
Revenue filed this appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby matter was remanded to the original authority.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass and, therefore, after rejecting the stay application, appeal itself is being taken up for hearing.
3. In this case, original authority sanctioned the refund claim and appropriated the said amount against outstanding arrear. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the matter to the original authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:-
I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. I find that vide impugned order the adjudicating authority has adjusted the consequential refund of Rs. 8,81,695/- against the outstanding arrear of Rs. 9,03,521/-. Such an order of adjustment of definitely an order prejudicial to the interest of appellant and hence in the interest on justice at least personal hearing should have been granted by disclosing the proposed action of adjustment of dues. In absence of the same I hold that there has been breach of principles of nature justice. I, therefore, set aside the order and remand the case for fresh adjudication after disclosing the proposed action in writing and then granting opportunity of personal hearing.
4. Learned D.R. reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that there is no provision for giving opportunity of personal hearing for appropriation of dues against outstanding arrear. On perusal of the impugned order, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned D.R. It appears that the respondent is disputing appropriation of the refund amount against outstanding arrear and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the assessee should be given opportunity to defend their case which is part of principles of nature justice.
5. In view of that I do not find any reason to interfere the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK