2002 (11) TMI 651 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of service of notice on partners of the erstwhile partnership firm under Section 11A of the Act.
2. Correct application of the direction given by the Tribunal to the Commissioner.
3. Adequacy of findings by the adjudicating authority on the service of notice to partners.

Issue 1 - Validity of service of notice on partners:
The appeal concerns the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, regarding the service of notice on partners of the erstwhile partnership firm. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to examine if the service of notice was correct under Section 11A of the Act. The appellant argued that the Commissioner made unwarranted observations and did not address the crucial issue of serving notice to partners before raising a demand. The appellant emphasized that no notice of demand was issued under Section 11A, and the entire order should be set aside due to the lack of consideration for the service of notice on partners.

Issue 2 - Correct application of Tribunal's direction:
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to determine if valid notice was served on the partners of the erstwhile firm before raising a demand. The appellant contended that the Commissioner did not follow this direction and failed to provide a clear finding on the validity of the service of notice on partners. The Revenue representative acknowledged the absence of a clear finding by the adjudicating authority, indicating a discrepancy in addressing the Tribunal's direction. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner should have adhered to its direction and given a clear finding on the service of notice to partners, rather than making unwarranted observations.

Issue 3 - Adequacy of findings by the adjudicating authority:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found shortcomings in the impugned order due to the lack of a clear finding by the adjudicating authority on the direction given by the Tribunal regarding the service of notice to partners. The Tribunal deemed the observations made by the Commissioner as unnecessary and decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for a re-examination of the direction provided earlier. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to the party and keeping all connected issues open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the necessity for the Commissioner to re-examine the direction given by the Tribunal regarding the validity of the service of notice on the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm under Section 11A of the Act.