2003 (2) TMI 371 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
2. Consideration of evidence and contentions raised by the appellants.
3. Adequacy of opportunities granted for personal hearing.
4. Decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice
The Commissioner of Central Excise held that multiple units owned by a family were involved in misusing the Small Scale Exemption to evade duty. The appellants argued that they were not granted proper opportunities before the order was passed. They claimed to have made requests for un-relied documents, inspected records, and produced evidence in support of their claim. The appellants contended that their independence as separate units was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument, stating that the contentions raised in the interim reply required verification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

Issue 2: Consideration of evidence and contentions
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner had granted six opportunities for personal hearing, with the appellants failing to appear on most occasions. The appellants, however, claimed that their interim reply, which included evidence of independence among the units, was not adequately considered. The Tribunal noted that the detailed interim reply submitted by the appellants was not addressed in the impugned order. Recognizing the need for verification of the contentions raised, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for a fresh adjudication, allowing both parties to present evidence in support of their claims.

Issue 3: Adequacy of opportunities for personal hearing
The appellants contended that they were not granted proper opportunities for a hearing, despite the Commissioner providing six chances. The Tribunal observed that although the appellants had inspected records and obtained photocopies, they failed to appear before the Commissioner on the scheduled date. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' argument that they were not afforded adequate opportunities. The Commissioner's actions in granting multiple opportunities for personal hearing were deemed sufficient by the Tribunal.

Issue 4: Decision to set aside the impugned order
In light of the arguments presented by both parties and the failure to adequately consider the evidence and contentions raised by the appellants, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough verification of the contentions raised in the interim reply and allowed both sides to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. The appeals were disposed of through remand, ensuring a fair and comprehensive adjudication process.