2008 (7) TMI 769 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of duty and penalties
- Allegation of non-application of mind in passing the impugned order
- Verbatim reproduction of previous order in the impugned order
- Lack of careful consideration of evidence and submissions
- Direction for a speaking order after re-examination of evidence and submissions

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the demand of duty and penalties, involving a second round of litigation on the same subject matter. The Appellate Tribunal had previously remanded the case to the Commissioner for a re-examination of evidence and submissions. The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, alleging non-application of mind and verbatim reproduction of the previous order. The learned Advocates for the appellants argued that the impugned order lacked careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, pointing out similarities between the current and previous orders. The JCDR also acknowledged the lack of thorough examination in the impugned order.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found merit in the appellants' contentions regarding the non-application of mind in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand once again. The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner of Central Excise was directed to pass a speaking order after carefully examining the evidence on record, considering the submissions of the parties, and providing cogent reasons for the decision. Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of giving another reasonable opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses before issuing a new adjudication order. Ultimately, both appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a more thorough and reasoned decision-making process in the future.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of due diligence and careful consideration of evidence and submissions in administrative orders. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case underscores the significance of providing parties with a fair opportunity to present their case and have their arguments duly considered before a final decision is reached.