M/S. Nipha Steels Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Kolkata-Iv
- Case No.Excise Appeal No.-E/419/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has relied, in passing an order against the appellant, upon a prior adjudication order that was neither supplied to the appellant nor otherwise made available to it, the appellant has not been afforded a fair opportunity to meet the case against it, and the impugned order is therefore vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice. Such a breach is remedied by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the appellate authority, with direction to supply the relied-upon order to the appellant, to grant a personal hearing, and to decide the issues afresh, all issues being kept open for both parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective positions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.25/Kol-IV/12 dated-28/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata-IV)
For approval and signature of:
DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : 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 : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?
M/s. Nipha Steels Ltd. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV
RESPONDENT(S) APPEARANCE
Sri S.P. Sidhanta, Consultant FOR APPELLANTS Sri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENTS
CORAM: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 04/03/2015 ORDER NO.FO/A/75207/2015
Per DR. D.M. MISRA
This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.25/Kol-IV/12 dated-28/03/2012 passed by the Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata-IV).
2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Sri S.P. Sidhanta submitted that during the relevant period from January, 1995 to April, 1995, they have availed CENVAT Credit on input invoices issued by two registered dealers, viz. M/s. Shree Shyam Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and Shri Shyam Trading Corporation, under Rule 57 GG of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. it was alleged that the said traders did not have the facility to load/unload the goods at their premises, hence the invoices issued by the said traders were alleged to be not proper. Accordingly, the credit availed by them was also considered as irregular. The Ld. Commr. (Appeals) in the impugned order has referred to one adjudication order while upholding the allegation against the said two registered dealers; a copy of which was neither handed over to them nor they were given an opportunity to explain any allegation in relation to the findings recorded in the said order against these dealers resulting into violation of principles of natural justice. It is his submission that unless a copy of the order relied by the Commr. (Appeals), be handed over to them, it would be difficult on their part to defend the case. He pleads that the matter may be remanded to the Commr. (Appeals) and they should be supplied with a copy of the order referred to by the Ld. Commr. (Appeals).
3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the case. He also undertakes to supply a copy of the order referred to in the order of Ld. Commr. (Appeals).
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has referred to an adjudication order passed by the Ld. Commr., Kolkata-II Commissionerate dated-30/12/1997. In my opinion, the appellant ought to be supplied with a copy of the said order since the same is relied upon in passing the impugned order against the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh after handing over a copy of the order dated 30/12/1997 to the Appellant and an opportunity of personal hearing be granted to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. Both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their favour. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 20/4/15 (DR. D.M. MISRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
k.b/-
Excise Appeal No.-E/419/2012
3
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