9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 443 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Principles of natural justice contravention, demand of duty on textured yarn, failure to provide documents to the appellant, communication of hearing dates. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the issue of demanding duty on textured yarn manufactured by the appellant due to alleged discrepancies in the central excise invoice. The notice issued to the appellant highlighted the discovery of two sets of invoices in their factory, showing different prices for each clearance. The appellant requested copies of certain documents, citing voluminous content, but received no response. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty without addressing the appellant's request for document supply or attendance at hearings. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of notice of hearing and non-receipt of document copies, which was dismissed without addressing these concerns. The Tribunal found that the appellant had raised a valid point regarding the contravention of natural justice principles. It was noted that some requested documents were not provided, and the communication of three hearings within two days seemed impractical. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturned the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to address the appellant's concerns regarding natural justice principles and conduct a new adjudication of the case. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of upholding natural justice principles in legal proceedings, highlighting the need for proper communication, document provision, and fair treatment of parties involved in such matters. The remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) aimed to ensure a thorough review of the case with due regard to the appellant's rights and concerns, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in similar cases.
|
