Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.E/1492/11

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.33/BR-33/Th-I/2011 dated 06/07/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S. S. Garg, 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 : 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? ========================================

Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Thane

Appearance: None for appellant Shri.V.K.Agarwal,Dy. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing : 26/05/2015 Date of Decision : 26/05/2015

ORDER NO

Per: P. K. Jain

1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.33/BR-33/Th-I/2011 dated 06/07/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted PP medicaments. They were using common inputs and input services. According to Revenue they were not maintaining separate accounts for the input and input service used in the dutiable and exempted goods. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding an amount of 8 / 10% of the price of the exempted products. The appellant did not reply to the show-cause notice in spite of reminders dated 20/05/2011, 31/05/2011 & 15/06/2011. The appellant also failed to attend personal hearing fixed on 31/05/2011, 15/06/2011 & 30/06/2011. Since the appellant neither replied nor appeared for personal hearing, the case was decided by the Commissioner. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed a demand of Rs.1,65,11,288/-, interest on the said imposed amount and penalty of equal to the amount of duty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a mistake on the part of the appellant not to reply or not to attend the personal hearing. However, he submits that they were maintaining separate records in respect of input and input service. They were also reversing the Cenvat credit taken in respect of input and input service used in the manufacture of exempted goods before clearance. Some small amounts were adjusted later on. Ld. Counsel further submits that if the matter is remanded, they will appear before the Commissioner and submit all the required documents in support of their contention.

4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterates the findings given in the impugned order.

5. It is clear from the impugned order that the said order has been passed without getting any reply from the appellant. The appellant also did not avail the opportunities of personal hearing. Though no fault can be found with Revenue as three opportunities were given in the interest of justice, we feel that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication keeping all the issues open.

6. Keeping in view the appellants conduct in past, we direct the appellant to appear before the Commissioner on 03/08/2015 at 11.00 AM with detailed submissions including the records to prove their contention. The Commissioner will thereafter fix a date for personal hearing and decide the matter. Any further information required by the Commissioner will be submitted by the appellant without any delay. The appellant will also not seek any adjournment except in very very exceptional circumstances.

7. Appeal is allowed by way of remand, keeping all issues open and we are not expressing any opinion on any issue involved in the matter.

(Pronounced in Court)

(S.S. Garg) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

pj

1 4