M/S S.B. Reshellers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAPPEAL NO. E/1719/05
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a demand relates to a disputed period of about five years, a show-cause notice reply is not adequately prepared where the assessee has been given insufficient opportunity to do so, and the adjudicating authority must consider such ground; and reconciliation statements and evidence first produced before the appellate authority, which were not considered by it, must be considered by the adjudicating authority on remand, so that an order passed without considering such material and without affording adequate opportunity to reply is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/57/2005 dated 31.01.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II.)
For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri Raju, 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 : Yes 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?
=====================================================
M/s S.B. Reshellers Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 30.07.2015 Date of Decision: 30.07.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Anil Choudhary:
Heard the parties.
2. We find as the impugned demand relates to disputed period for about 5 years, there was lack of sufficient opportunity to prepare reply to show-cause notice. Reconciliation statements (Exh.-28, 29 & 30 in this appeal) which were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the first time have not been considered. Further the ground of lack of sufficient opportunity was taken before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the same was not considered.
3. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand, remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall hear the appellant and consider all evidences produced, and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appellant is also directed to appear before the adjudicating authority and seek opportunity of hearing within a period of six weeks, from receipt of a copy of this order.
(Pronounced in open Court)
(Raju) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sp
2
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