M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.CMB-CEX-OOO-APP-040-14, dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs,
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant has failed to produce relevant evidence before the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority may be directed to receive that evidence on remand, and a further adjournment-free opportunity to adduce evidence may be granted on the appellant's appearance and application, subject to the appellant being precluded from seeking adjournment on that date and to the appellate authority passing appropriate orders should the appellant fail to adduce evidence to its satisfaction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CMB-CEX-OOO-APP-040-14, dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore]
M/s. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant None
For the Respondent Shri L. Paneerselvam AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 02-03-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40228 / 2015
None present for the appellant but there is an adjournment application on the ground that consultant is not in station. Perusal of the appellate order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the appellant did not produce relevant evidence before the lower authority, for which the adjudication was confirmed.
2. In order to grant an opportunity of adducing evidence before the appellate authority, appeal is remanded with the direction that the appellant shall appear before the authority within a month of receipt of this order and make an application to fix the date of hearing. On the date fixed by that authority, without seeking adjournment, appellant has to adduce entire evidence to defend its case.
3. Learned departmental representative says that earlier by Final Order No.793/2012, dated 13.07.2012 of the Tribunal. Appellant was granted an opportunity of adducing evidence, but filed to do that. Therefore, granting another opportunity shall be abuse of the process of law.
4. It is made clear that if the appeal is kept pending in Tribunal, it shall serve no useful purpose because the evidences if any comes up to record, that may require detailed examination at the grass root. Learned appellate authority in exercise of his co-extensive and co-terminus power shall be in a position to examine entire evidence without burdening the office of the learned departmental representative, for which, this remand is warranted.
4. The appellate authority upon hearing the matter shall pass appropriate order. It is made clear to the appellant that in the event it fais to adduce evidence before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to his satisfaction, that authority shall pass appropriate order.
5. In the result, the stay application is disposed and appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals). (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 09-03-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 02.03.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 03.03.3015
Fair Order Typing 09.03.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 11.03.2015
2 E/S/41709/2014 and E/41447/2014
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free