2012 (2) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Remand of matter by Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication, issuance of show cause notice u/s Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2004, legality of remand by Commissioner (Appeals), power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand.

Remand of matter by Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for re-adjudication, observing the principles of natural justice, without confirming the demand of duty against the appellant, rendering the stay petition infructuous. The appellant had already deposited a partial amount of the total demand. Both the sides appealed against this decision.

Issuance of show cause notice u/s Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2004: The Superintendent directed the appellants to deposit a specific amount of duty, citing a case of default in correct payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that a show cause notice must be issued in such cases, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in a similar matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for proper adjudication after issuance of a show cause notice.

Legality of remand by Commissioner (Appeals) and power to remand: The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not clarify the direction to issue a fresh show cause notice, potentially converting illegal proceedings into legal ones. The Revenue appealed on the grounds that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand and should have decided the matter directly. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to re-adjudicate the matter after proper observance of the process of law, upholding the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the stay petition and both appeals, directing the lower authority to issue a proper show cause notice before adjudicating the remanded proceedings, ensuring the appellant's right to defend themselves. The legality of the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, emphasizing the need for due process in the adjudication of tax matters.