2005 (1) TMI 567 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
2. Allegation of bias in the decision-making process.
3. Consideration of exemption benefits under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the Assistant Commissioner's decision was influenced by the directions of the Commissioner communicated through a letter, which stated that a change of factory name does not grant the status of a new factory. The Revenue contended that the Assistant Commissioner arrived at an independent finding after hearing the assessee, and the communication from the Commissioner did not affect the impartiality of the decision. The Commissioner of Appeals found a violation of natural justice in the Assistant Commissioner's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits, specifically regarding the exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999.

2. The Revenue argued that the Assistant Commissioner's decision was based on independent assessment and not influenced by the Commissioner's directions. The Revenue pointed out that the Commissioner of Appeals acknowledged that there was no evidence of misstatement by the appellant for obtaining a fresh registration or any action taken by the department to revoke the registration. The Commissioner of Appeals also noted a violation of natural justice in the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal considered the Revenue's plea for remand justified, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for a fresh decision on the merits, particularly concerning the exemption benefits under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999.

3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner of Appeals to issue fresh orders within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the merits of the matter, especially regarding the respondent's claim for exemption benefits under the specified notification. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair and unbiased decision-making process, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice in adjudicating the case.