2004 (3) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Validity of the impugned order-in-appeal due to lack of show cause notice.

Issue 1: Validity of the impugned order-in-appeal
In this case, the Revenue challenged the validity of the order-in-appeal that reversed the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the original order citing the absence of a show cause notice served on the respondents before confirming duty and penalty. The Central Excise officers conducted a physical verification of stock at the respondents' factory premises, finding discrepancies and excess stock which was seized. The respondents paid the duty on the short raw material. The respondents requested waiver of the show cause notice and participated in the adjudication proceedings, contesting the Department's claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the reversal on the necessity of a show cause notice, citing legal precedents. However, the appellate judge found the Commissioner's decision flawed, as the respondents had voluntarily waived the notice in writing. The judge emphasized that the respondents were given a personal hearing, submitted written arguments, and contested the allegations during adjudication. The judge concluded that the Commissioner failed to consider the facts and circumstances properly, reversing the order without examining the merits. Consequently, the appellate judge set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on merits, allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment illustrates the key issues regarding the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal due to the absence of a show cause notice and the subsequent decision by the appellate judge to remand the case for a proper consideration of the merits.