Shiva Steel Industries (Nagpur) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 01/2004/C dated 29.1.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Nagpur)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and 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 :

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?

======================================================

Shiva Steel Industries (Nagpur) Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent

Appearance: Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for appellant Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent

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

Date of Hearing: 27.5.2015 Date of Decision: 27.5.2015

ORDER NO

Per: P.K. Jain

This is a stay petition filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 29.1.2014. The case was heard earlier and certain details were sought from the Revenue and after hearing both sides, we find that the principles of natural justice have been violated in the present case and the matter needs to be remanded. In view of this fact, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal.

2. It appears that the appellant had asked for the cross-examination and in the case a personal hearing and cross-examination were fixed by the Commissioner. The personal hearing and cross-examination of officers and witness were fixed on 9.1.2014 and a letter of intimation for the same was sent by post on 23.12.2014. It is the appellants claim that the said letter has been received by them only on 3.2.2014 which was much after the date of personal hearing and cross-examination was over. It was also submitted that immediately after receiving the said letter, they have written to the Commissioner about the said fact and before receipt of the order-in-original.

3. The learned AR submitted letter F.No. V(72)15-83/Adj./2012/1795 dated 10.4.2015 received from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur as also letter F.No. V(72)15-83/Adj./2012/2271 dated 6.5.2015 clarifying the position. From the records, it is clear that the letter of personal hearing and cross-examination were dispatched on 23.12.2003 by ordinary post but was received late by the appellant.

4. Keeping in view the factual matrix and the fact that the unit is located in a rural area and the nearest post office is quite far from the said place, it is possible that the said notice might have been received as late as on 3.2.2014. We also note that the appellant has written to the Commissioner about the late receipt of the notice before receiving the order-in-original.

5. Keeping in view the overall facts, we feel in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication of the case after grant of personal hearing/cross-examination. We also direct the appellant to appear on 20.7.2015 before the Commissioner and the Commissioner would thereafter fix a date of personal hearing and cross-examination and thereafter decide the case. It is also made clear to the appellant that they will not seek adjournment except in very exceptional circumstances and also co-operate in the adjudication proceedings. We are not expressing any view on the merits of the case.

6. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in above terms.

(Pronounced in Court)

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

tvu 1 4