Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Narendra K Pahade vs Cce Aurangabad on 14 February, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/1041, 1079, 1080, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1095, 1096, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1138, 1231, 1232 of 09
IN APPEAL NO. E/744, 742, 743, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 758, 759, 784, 785, 786, 791, 848, 849/09 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JAK (107-123) 166 to 171, 173 to 178, 186, 188, 190 to 192/09 dated 30th March 2009, and JAK (89-91) 181, 181, 183/09 dated 26th March, 2009 dated passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Aurangabad.
For approval and signature:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Narendra K Pahade
Dinesh K. Rathi
Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Adiath Steel Re-Rolling Mill
Pawan Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Giriraj Re-rolling Pvt Ltd.
Maa Gee Re-rolling Mills. Pvt Ltd.
Santosh Mundada
Ghanshyam Chuuicalji Goyal
Nilathil Rachel Chacko
Sapna Re-rolling Industries
Suresh Fatechand Agrawal
Suresh Fatechand Agrawal
Suresh Fatechand Agrawal
Anil D. Lingade
Rakeshkumar Fakirchand Gupta
Saraswati Steel Industries
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Aurangabad,
CCE Pune
Respondent
Appearance Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, Advocate for appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Consultant Dr. Gadekar, Advocate For Respondent CORAM:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 14.02.11 Date of Decision : 14.02.11 ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran All the stay applications and appeals are directed against the orders-in-appeal No. JAK (107-123) 166 to 171, 173 to 178, 186, 188, 190 to 192/09 dated 30th March 2009, and JAK (89-91) 181, 181, 183/09 dated 26th March, 2009.
2. After hearing both sides on the stay applications we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeals itself at this stage, as the issue involved in these cases are in a very narrow compass. Hence after allowing the stay applications filed by the applicants, we taken up the appeals for disposal.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants brings to our notice that the first appellate authority in her impugned order have accepted the arguments put forth by the appellants as to the adjudication order has not been fair and has been passed without following the principle of natural justice and they also bring to our notice, the findings that the issue needs denovo adjudication by the adjudicating authority. It is their submission that having have come to such conclusion, the first appellate authority has proceeded and upheld the order-in-original only on the findings that as per the provisions of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot remand the matter for denovo proceedings.
4. The learned JDR submits that the impugned order is correct and revenue has got evidence to produce before the Bench to uphold the demand of duty and consequent penalties.
5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the first appellate authority in her order-in-appeal (impugned order) has recorded the following findings:-
All the above arguments put forward by the consultants have succeeded in creating a doubt regarding the fairness of investigation and adjudication also. The arguments appear to seek an order in favour of denovo adjudication by remanding the matter back to original adjudicating authority.
6. On a specific query by the Bench, it is informed that the Revenue has not appealed against the above reproduced findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In our considered view, if the first appellate authority has been convinced of there being no fairness in the adjudication, it is imperative, in the interest of the justice the matter needs to be re-adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. In view of the above, without recording any findings on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principle of natural justice. At the same time, we would also like to direct the adjudicating authority that he should try and dispose of the matter within three months on receipt of this order. The learned Counsels for the parties are also directed to co-operate with the adjudicating authority and appear before him when matter is posted for adjudication.
7. Appeals are allowed by way of remand. Stay petition also stand disposed of.
(Dictated in open Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk 4