Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Elora Tobacco Company Ltd vs Cce, Indore on 3 March, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEBER BENCH
Excise Appeal No.1346 of 2008-SM
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/74/2008 dated 31.03.2008 passed by the CCE (A), Indore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, 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 should 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?
M/s.Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Indore Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri Anil Khanna, SDR
Coram: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.03.2011
ORDER NO._______________
PER: ASHOK JINDAL
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order which has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who has passed order without affording an opportunity to reply or to explain the contents of their defence to the visit made by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the visit to their factory.
2. Heard and considered.
3. On 30.07.2010, this Tribunal has directed the DR to confirm from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) whether any opportunity of rebuttal was granted to the appellants after the visit of the Commissioner (Appeals) to their factory on 29.03.2008 or not.
4. Today learned DR has filed the report saying that the order has been passed on the basis of record available in the factory of the appellants and from the records it is clear that no opportunity of rebuttal was given to the appellants during the visit of the Commissioner (Appeals) to their factory.
5. As observed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2010, the appellants were required to give an opportunity of being heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the matter which was not done by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the matter needs further examination by the Commissioner (Appeals) by giving an opportunity to appellant to rebut the report made by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the visit to their factory on 29.03.2008.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(pronounced in the open court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMEBR (JUDICIAL) mk 1 3