2002 (12) TMI 468 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order without notice, compliance with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding time limit for adjudication.

Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant's counsel sought adjournment for personal reasons, which was not granted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner proceeded with the adjudication without giving notice of passing the order, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. Citing various judgments, including one from the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Tribunal Special Benches, the appellant argued that rejection of adjournment without proper intimation before passing an ex parte order is unjust and inequitable. The Tribunal acknowledged the violation of natural justice and ordered a remand for de novo consideration by the Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of providing reasonable opportunities for the appellant to present their case.

2. Compliance with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act:
The respondent, represented by the SDR, highlighted the provision of Section 11A(2A)(a) of the Central Excise Act, inserted through the Finance Act, 2001, which mandates determining the duty amount within one year of issuing the show cause notice. The respondent argued that the appellant had been given two opportunities for personal hearing but failed to respond, justifying the Commissioner's decision to adjudicate the cases without further delay. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the failure to provide a notice before passing the order on the specified date constituted a violation of natural justice, warranting a remand for fresh consideration by the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai, in the judgment delivered by S/Shri S.L. Peeran and Jeet Ram Kait, addressed the issues of violation of natural justice and compliance with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention regarding the lack of notice before passing the order and ordered a remand for de novo consideration by the Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing reasonable opportunities for the appellant to present their case effectively.