2006 (2) TMI 320 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Violation of procedure established by law in adjudication process.

In this case, the main issue revolved around the violation of the procedure established by law in the adjudication process. The appellants had requested an extension for filing submissions, but no reply was received. The personal hearing was adjourned twice, and without the mandatory third adjournment as per Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner made a decision, leading to the issuance of the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the procedure of adjudication envisaged three adjournments, which were denied in this case, resulting in a violation of the procedure established by law. The appellants had presented purchase orders indicating the intended use of the goods supplied by them for manufacturing handicrafts. However, the Commissioner did not consider this crucial piece of evidence, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to present their case effectively during the adjudication process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order passed in violation of Section 33A of the Central Excise Act 1944 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to conduct another hearing, consider all issues, and keep them open for further deliberation.

Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of in the above terms, emphasizing the importance of following the procedural requirements laid down by law in adjudication processes to ensure fairness and the opportunity for all parties to present their case effectively before a decision is made.