M/S. Adf Foods Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/56/NSK/2010 dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

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 Yes of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

M/s. ADF Foods Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Vinod Awtani, CA for the appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 31.03.2015 Date of decision : 31.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/56/NSK/2010 dated 18.02.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of the service tax paid on the inputs services which are utilised by the appellant for manufacture of finished goods and subsequently exported.

4. Without going into the merits of the case, I find that the first appellate authority in the impugned order has disposed of the appeal without granting effective personal hearing to the appellant herein. It is seen from the impugned order that in para 5, the first appellate authority records that he had granted a personal hearing on 16.02.2010 and since there was no request for adjournment or appearance from the assessee-appellant he disposed of the same by an ex-parte order.

5. In my considered view, on an issue like refund of the amount of Cenvat credit of the service tax paid, a view should be taken only after following the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is an order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the first appellate authority could have granted another opportunity to the appellant for putting up a case before him.

6. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.

7. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3