2004 (5) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty by the Jt. Commissioner.
3. Dismissal of the appeal and modification application without hearing the appellants.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty
The appellants filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,22,824/- each. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to proceed with the appeal itself by waiving the pre-deposit amount. This decision was made with the consent of both parties, allowing for the disposal of the appeals without the need for pre-deposit.

Issue 2: Confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty by the Jt. Commissioner
The appellants had appealed against the confirmation of duty demand, arguing that the charges they recovered under the guise of installation charges should not have been included in the assessable value. Additionally, they contested the penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs within 15 days, which the appellants sought to modify due to financial hardship. However, both the modification application and the appeals were dismissed without hearing the appellants, leading to the appeal against this dismissal.

Issue 3: Dismissal of the appeal and modification application without hearing the appellants
The appellants raised a grievance that they were not heard on their modification application and that the appeal was dismissed without giving them a chance to present their case. The Tribunal found this grievance to be valid and set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with instructions to first pass fresh orders on the modification application, providing the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide on the appeal after dealing with the modification application.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of providing appellants with a fair hearing and due process in such matters.