Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Elvina Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 December, 2001
JUDGMENT
G.A. Brahma Deva
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 12.8.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore.
2. Shri Srinivas, Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that both the authorities have disallowed the modvat credit on procedural lapses. He said that the procedural lapses were rectifiable defects and sufficient opportunity was not given to them to rectify the defects. Further more as can be seen from the orders, no opportunity has been given to the party to place their arguments before the respective authorities. In this context Shri Srinivas drew my attention to the finding portion of the Order-in-Original wherein he has passed an order based upon the written submissions filed by the party with reference to Show-cause notice without giving a personal hearing. On an appeal filed by the party before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has also proceeded to pass an ex-party order without acceding to the request made by the party for an adjournment. IN these circumstance she requested that Order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice and matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority.
3. Shri Narasimhsa Murhty appearing for the revenue submitted that on merits strong prima-facie case is in favour of the Revenue, since the party has availed credit based upon the endorsed invoices and same is not permissible as it was held by the larger bench in the case of Balmer lawrie & Co Ltd., v. CCE Kanpur reported in 2000(116) ELT 364. Shri Srinivas submits that the facts and circumstances in the case are distinguishable and ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
4. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case, I find that orders passed by the authorities below suffer from denial of principles of natural justice as it was rightly pointed by the counsel. In the view I have taken, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. The party may make use of this opportunity to substantiate their claim during the readjudication proceedings and thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)