Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs C.C.E., Chandigarh on 8 May, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. In this case, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pathankot Devision vide his Order dt. 29.10.97 disallowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.1,95,307/- to the appellants apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on them. The party filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, who vide his Order dt. 16.10.2000, dismissed the appeal of the party unholding the order passed by the Original Authority.
2. The matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition filed by the appellants against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Shri P.K.Mittal, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in this case, the order passed by the Original Authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the same has been passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity of hearing. He states that this point was also raised before the lower appellate authority, but the same has been dismissed by observing that sufficient time was given for personal hearing and hence the modvat credit was denied. The ld. Counsel draws attention to the part of the Order-in-Original, in which, it is observed that the party was granted personal hearing on 7.9.98 and vide their FAX Message on 3.9.98, they sought adjournment, as their Executive in-charge was not available on that date. They were further given a notice of personal hearing on 21.9.98, but no one appeared on that date. It is contended that the second notice for hearing on 21.9.98 was not received by them and therefore, there was no question of attending the hearing on that date. I have perused the copies of the Order-in-Original and that of the Order-in-Appeal and it is observed that the appellants had raised this point before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the ld. appellant authority has not dealt with this point raised by the party. Shri S. Kumar, JDR appearing for the respondents, on going through the documents on record, also does not dispute these facts. In my view, it appears that the order passed by the Original Authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the present proceedings initiated against the appellants cannot be sustained and therefore the appellants are granted the Stay from pre-deposit of the duty as well as penalty confirmed on them. The order appealed against is set aside and the matter remanded to the Original Authority for passing a de-novo order on considering the submissions made by them and also affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to them.
3. The appeal is, thus, allowed by remand in the above terms.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)