M/S Vasudev Udyog vs C.C.E. & S.T. Ghaziabad

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 30/COMMR/GZB-14 dated: 07.05.2014 passed by CC CE & ST Ghaziabad]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

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 Vasudev Udyog ...Appellant

Shivam Metals

Mayank Metals

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T.  Ghaziabad Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Ashish Bansal & Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advocates for the Appellants

Mr. Devinder Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.29.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53240-53242/2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

These appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, wherein besides confirming the duty demand proposed in the SCN, penalty and redemption fine have also been imposed on the appellants.

2. The Ld. Advocates Sh. Ashish Bansal and Sh. Tarun Chawla appearing for the Appellants submit that request of the appellant for cross examination of the witnesses have not been acceded to by the Adjudicating Authority and without affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, the SCN was adjudicated in gross and flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

4. I find that the personal hearing of the SCN was fixed on 13.11.2013 and on the request of the appellant; the matter was re-listed for hearing on 31.12.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise. On the said date, the Advocate for the appellants appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and requested for cross examination of certain persons, whose statements were recorded pursuant to summon. Further, in the interim reply dated 17.12.2012 to the SCN, the appellant had specifically requested for cross examining the concerned persons and for affording opportunity of personal hearing before adjudication of the matter. However, without considering the above request of the appellant, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, in violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice.

5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not maintainable and accordingly the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise for consideration of the submissions of the appellant especially with regard to cross examination of the witnesses and thereafter for granting opportunity to the appellant for filing its defense reply to the SCN. The entire process of adjudication should be completed within the period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say, before adjudication of the matter the appellants shall be given opportunity of personal hearing.

6. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 3